SACD
Thu, Apr 15 2010, 6:25PM
Having read various reviews about SACD, and finding an increasing number of hydrid CDs in my collection, I have now got an SACD player and must say I am absolutely delighted with the quality of sound. I am listening to some recordings with "new ears". I am having to re-appraise some performances. For instance the Jarvi/Gothenberg SO Sibelius symphonies set on DG (before they unfortunately stopped issuing SACDs) - I previously thought these performances were slightly disappointing, but hearing them in SACD, the detail and tension of the performances are much more readily apparent. I applaud the specialist labels who continue to issue SACD recordings, particularly BIS, Channel Classics (Mahler/Fischer performances are superb), Linn (Mozart/Mackerras). I hope Gramophone will lobby the record companies to continue with SACD - the rewards are many. I'd be interested to hear other people's thoughts.
Sat, Apr 17 2010, 7:36PM
#2
RE: SACD
One reason I purchased my first SACD Player years ago was to enjoy the many remastered recordings dating back to the early days of stereo - two and later three channel releases from Mercury and RCA along with much of the George Szell and Bruno Walter libraries from CBS for example. With improved dynamics and some engineering wizardry, classic performances from as early as 1954 were made to sound fresh and almost new again. My interest in favorite recordings was further satisfied when Pentatone began releasing Philips Quad masters from the golden age of analogue. These well known performances from the 1970s in their four channel format were and are again, (IMO,) splendid examples of the recording art - possessing elusive qualities like warm hall acoustics and plenty of air. Which brings us to the hear and now in which home playback has finally matched the potential of the recording art as we know it with some fascinating variations. For those interested in such things, the dedicated listening room can be whatever we want it to be - earphones for one to home theater for many since a great recording is really a great performance. At present, many of my favorites just happen to be SACDs. Imagine that.
Sun, Apr 18 2010, 1:04PM
#3
RE: SACD
Gramophone should promote SACD
It does: every month in the Audio pages I comment on some recent hi-resolution recordings, whether they be SA-CD or Blu-ray audio, and in the June issue I'll be reviewing the Cambridge Audio Azur 650BD, a 'universal' Blu-ray/DVD-Video/DVD-Audio/SA-CD player.
Sun, Apr 18 2010, 2:15PM
#4
RE: Home RE: Home
It does: every month in the Audio pages I comment on some recent hi-resolution recordings, whether they be SA-CD or Blu-ray audio, and in the June issue I'll be reviewing the Cambridge Audio Azur 650BD, a 'universal' Blu-ray/DVD-Video/DVD-Audio/SA-CD player.
I was comparing Jolly's "Tune Surfing" with the hard to notice spaces dedicated to SACD - just like your Super Audio Corner; SACD has never received the promotion treatment Gramophone is giving to downloaded music.
By the way, let me take the chance to tell you that I like very much your hi-fi pages.
Sun, Apr 18 2010, 4:48PM
#5
RE: SACD
Your support is greatly appreciated, and if only I had more space available I'd be able to give a more comprehensive overview of both the audio/video scene in general and specifically the SA-CD/Blu-ray/hi-res audio arena.
Sun, Apr 18 2010, 8:52PM
#6
RE: Home RE: Home
Your support is greatly appreciated, and if only I had more space available I'd be able to give a more comprehensive overview of both the audio/video scene in general and specifically the SA-CD/Blu-ray/hi-res audio arena.
As a nod to the past, Andrew, I think they should call it 'Surrounds in Retrospect' and give you a full page! (I know, I know -- you need to cover hi-res stereo, too - maybe a little flaw in my plan!)
Sounds in retrospect was always my favourite part of the magazine.
Sun, Apr 25 2010, 7:34PM
#7
RE: SACD
Thanks to everyone for their interesting comments. SACD is progress - it is better than CD and we should always be pushing for higher standards. The emphasis now is on MP3 and downloads and this area is definitely given more prominence than SACD in Gramophone. Incidentally, I also echo the request for a return of "Sounds in Retrospect" which I too found most interesting reading.
I don't understand why DG should discontinue issuing SACDs because they have always presented themselves as a prestigious music label. Surely it can't cost them much more to produce hybrid rather than ordinary CDs? I suspect many people, particularly collectors of classical music, are giving priority to performances issued in SACD over those in "ordinary CD sound".
I also thank the LSO and Concertgebouw for issuing their recordings in SACD - many are very fine, particularly the Bruckner symphonies conducted by Jansons (3&4) and Haitink (8), Gergiev's LSO Romeo & Juliet. I also particularly like the Walton 1 from Colin Davis - a magnicent performance in superb sound. The Colin Davis/LSO Sibelius performances also sound very good - I am eagerly awaiting the SACD of Kullervo.
Sun, Apr 25 2010, 8:13PM
#8
RE: SACD
Having watched the rise and fall of Betamax, 8-track, Quadrophony, DAT, laser disc and probably a few more that escape my mind right now, I’ve stood back from recent developments like SACD. I’m certainly impressed by the Blu Ray discs I’ve bought but pretty ignorant re, what's out there in terms of current state-of-the-art hi-fi.
Can someone point me to an article, in Gramophone or wherever, that lays out a comparison of these developments, what they offer and where they’re going?
Thu, May 6 2010, 11:32AM
#9
RE: SACD
Gramophone should promote SACD
I agree, there are so many classical record labels releasing music in stereo/multichannel SACD Channel Classics, PentaTone, Alia Vox, Harmonia Mundi, MDG, LSO, BSO, Mariinsky, RCA Red Seal, Tudor, Linn, RCO Live, Chandos, Hungaroton, Sony Classical, Hänssler etc etc and yet there's only 1/2 of the page in the Gramophone magazine covering music in this beautiful format.
Thu, May 6 2010, 12:18PM
#10
RE: SACD
Having watched the rise and fall of Betamax, 8-track, Quadrophony, DAT, laser disc and probably a few more that escape my mind right now, I’ve stood back from recent developments like SACD.
Tagalie, the SACD format is already 11 years on the market. :-)
Thu, May 6 2010, 12:40PM
#11
RE: SACD
I'd definitely like to lend my support to Gramophone giving more coverage and space to SACD. I think you should get behind the format as much as possible and increase the physical space you give it.
Why not start a series of composer or genre-based articles on SACD - what's available, etc.?
Thu, May 6 2010, 2:49PM
#12
RE: SACD RE: SACD
Having watched the rise and fall of Betamax, 8-track, Quadrophony, DAT, laser disc and probably a few more that escape my mind right now, I’ve stood back from recent developments like SACD.
Tagalie, the SACD format is already 11 years on the market. :-)
True - but compared to Betamax, 8-track, Quadrophony, DAT, and laser disc, SACD is recent.
The "problem" with CD, SACD, DVD-A, Blu-ray and all other physical media is that they are physical, and therefore cost more to manufacture and distribute than a non-physical medium like a "software music file". (Yes, software has to be stored, and there's a cost associated with distributing via the Internet, but it's low compared with pallets of discs.)
And I use the cumbersome term "software music file" intentionally, to avoid the "mp3 is rubbish / no it's not" issue, because any problems with the perceived sound quality of "software music files" isn't that they're not physical, it's the encoding chosen.
With bandwidth ever-increasing (both on the Internet and within homes), and storage ever cheaper (2TB HDDs are now the 'price break'), there's no reason why music shouldn't be made available in a variety of encodings - from low-ish bitrate mp3, to lossless compressions like flac, so that people can buy the "quality" they wish to.
Better still, the music that's compressed doesn't then have to be reliant on, and limited to, a specific hardware implementation like SACD, Blue-ray, etc, to be played.
No doubt "arguments" (polite ones, of course) about which disc player is better will simply be replaced by ones about which DAC is better - but people will always need something to discuss :-)
Physical media aren't going to go away any time soon - the death of vinyl has been prematurely reported numerous times since the CD appeared - but they're simply not going to compete with software media because of basic business economics.
Thu, May 6 2010, 6:42PM
#13
RE: SACD
I began reading Gramophone in 1969. At the time, it was the best magazine for people with a serious interest in classical recordings. As a committed listener and collector, what I was seeking (and still seek to this day) are the best possible performances of each generation in the best possible sound. Over time performance styles change, so even if there isn't a particular standard for "best", there is a need to hear new interpretations. But technology's march forward has given us an opportunity to hear clearly, objectively identifiable improvements in sound quality over the years.
And yet, somewhere during this march (it became most clearly visible during the James Jolly era, but had been going on for some time), the Gramophone's commitment to the things I am interested in changed: yes Gramophone still sought to call our attention to the best of the various performance styles. But, there was a "dumbing down" of the reviews. (I guess the modern reader can't be bothered with actually reading more than a "quick hit".)
Worse, it no longer put any emphasis on the best possible technologies. I don't discredit Gramophone for following the development of downloading technology. In fact, it was forward-thinking to do so. But to embrace it AT THE EXPENSE of existing improved technologies was a sell-out of it's legacy!
In the Seventies, when big cross-over projects generated huge sales, the profits were used to do worthwhile, but less financially viable projects. By the Nineties, those cross-over projects' profits were being used to fund more cross-over projects (as bean counters replaced entrepreneurs at the major record labels)! I guess Gramophone was just reflecting the state of the industry.
Of course, the reader Gramophone was attracting with it's changed emphasis, ceased to be the person committed to collecting music, but the casual buyers who was interested in doing what was cool or hip. But, of course, that casual buyer is much more easily a non-buyer when the latest trend changes. And so, now, ten or fifteen years on, with profits almost gone from recordings, Gramophone is hopefully seeing the necessity of revisiting it's roots by dipping it's toe in the "quality first" waters.
When Gramophone comes around to putting a greater emphasis on hi-rez downloads than MP3, and when it's reviews of SACDs actually review the Super Audio layer of the discs in question (and your reviewers actually have surround systems to do so), then it might be time for me to consider once again dipping MY TOE back in the "buy Gramophone" waters.
Thu, May 6 2010, 7:06PM
#14
RE: SACD
SACD provides an extra dimension to a recording - opening up the soundstage, and enables the listener to further appreciate the finer points of a performance. Just as 78s led to LPs to CDs, so SACD is further progress. Progress should always be recognised and applauded: the alternative is stagnation or a step backwards. Gramophone should devote more space to SACDs and encourage the labels to issue more recordings in this format. The issue of downloads raises further questions: if you download a high quality FLAC file, how can you then play it through your system without degradation - it can only play as well as the weakest link in your hi-fi system allows? Has anyone used the Sonos wireless system and does it cope well with high resolution downloads? Presumably one can use the Sonos linked to a high quality DAC to get the best results,such as the Naim? Does anyone have any experience of this? How do people listen to the FLAC files?
Thu, May 6 2010, 11:49PM
#15
RE: SACD RE: SACD
The issue of downloads raises further questions: if you download a high quality FLAC file, how can you then play it through your system without degradation - it can only play as well as the weakest link in your hi-fi system allows?
But that's no different to playing an LP, CD, SACD, DVD-A, BRD or anything else.
With a music file, regardless of format, it needs decoding to an analogue signal you then input to an amplifier - just like a disc.
Presumably one can use the Sonos linked to a high quality DAC to get the best results,such as the Naim?
So long as the streaming device will output digital - which Sonos and Squeezebox will - you can feed it to an off-board DAC.
Multichannel music file formats exist and have done for some time - there's multichannel mp3, flac, ogg, wma, aiff, aac, alac, musepak and probably various others (although there's no great standardization of things like number of channels - flac has 8, ogg has up to 255! - or mappings). But they would, of course, require multichannel decoding and multichannel outputs from the streaming device/DAC.
How do people listen to the FLAC files?
Fwiw, I stream mine by wireless LAN from a file server via a Squeezebox Duet, into my existing hi-fi.
I may try using an off-board DAC at some point, although the one in the Squeezebox receiver isn't a bad one to start with (a 24-bit Wolfson WM8501, to be precise).
Gramophone should promote SACD instead of MP3, alas downloaded music is the new frontier of the music business so it seems SACD will remain relegated to a niche market and it's a pity because it represents the best way to reproduce music in our hi-fi systems today; furthermore the diffusion of MP3 is killing the culture of hi-fi listening, if you tell people MP3 is as good as CD like James Jolly does, what will most of the people think? that CD's are worthless and if CD's are worthless what about SACD's or higher resolution formats? useless!
Four years ago I bought my first SACD player and I am so happy with it that I will soon buy a new one and I'm sure that a better machine will improve even more my listening experience. I own circa 300 SACD's and every month I buy new ones, Scoastlistener has mentioned some fine labels committed to SACD and I'd like to add to the list the names of NEOS and Tudor or the labels owned by orchestras like LSO Live, San Francisco Simphony and Chicago.
Scoastlistener has correctly defined the way SACD improves the listening esperience but maybe he has forgotten to mention the SACD feature that for me represents the reason why I love this format: instrumental timbre with SACD is natural and realistic.