2. cables
  3. 1007304095

Good & Bad quality recordings of SACD's?

Greetings All,
Have any of you with SACD players noticed both the GOOD recording quality and the POOR recording quality of some SACD's? When they are well done, they are wonderful! When not, they SUCK pretty bad and are a real disappointment. I'm just now getting into SACD and I'm sure there are many others headed that way too. If you've had the same observation about GOOD & BAD, would you tell me/us about both please? Here's my example - the Sony SACD sampler that comes with the player: Willie Nelson-"Stardust" is the best sounding cut on the disc...and I'm not a big C&W fan. It just sounds like he's THERE in the room. The rest of the cuts are so-so and I would not buy ANY of the SACD's that they are from. I have REGULAR CD's that sound MUCH better then the other SACD cuts on the sample. Example - Patricia Barber - "Nightclub".
Your comments & personal observations are appreciated.
Happy listening!
myraj
rch102a97
162 posts
 
Nothing has changed since the vinyl days, the format does not determine sound quality. It is the engineering/production/studio that makes the difference. I own vinyl that sounds better than most SACD. Another disappointment; I read on the Audio Revolution web site that DVD-A is winning out over SACD. Reminds me of the Beta/VHS wars, not good for the consumer. Not enough software either. I'll stick with my redbook...
Ag insider logo xs@2x
cowman
26 posts
 
I feel that the Sony SACD sampler is wretched. Seems like someone decided to juice-up the sound on many of the cuts to impress the innocent. A brilliant strategy for selling a 3k or 5k player, eh?
The few SACDs I've listened to have been pretty good overall but, like you say, variable.
madisonears
117 posts
 
You guys are waaaay off base regarding the sampler disc, and SACD in general. I don't know what your CD system is like, but mine is pretty good: CAL Icon as transport to an Assemblage 3.1 DAC. Most cuts on the sampler, especially the older or acoustic recordings with simple recording set-ups, are far superior to CD counterparts in their tonal qualities and dimensional information. I don't think the music is juiced at all, and I am not one of the ignorant or innocent. I don't believe you can say that CD of Blonde on Blonde sounds anything like the SACD version. And the Miles Davis cut is so far beyond CD version in every respect. It is not juiced at all, but simply more realistic.
myraj OP
351 posts
 
Madisonears,
Thanks for your comments in this thread. However, I don't REALLY think you are listening to SACDs through the CAL/Assemblage set-up you described. That configuration will NOT allow you to hear the SACD recording....maybe you've got 2-layer SACDs and are hearing the regular CD version. (any comments on this from others?)
Also, just like with regular CDs, some SACD's ARE well engineered and recorded and they sound WONDERFUL and some of them are VERY disappointing, therefore, my comment, "they SUCK!" I'm pretty sure other folks have had this same observation too. I'd just like to hear comments from others on what they've heard in SACD recordings that are GOOD (so I/we could know what to buy) and what's BAD (so we could know what to NOT buy).
Thanks again and happy listening!
rdr4b
81 posts
 
I am, too, confused by Madisonear's comment unless he has a totally revamped CAL Icon that is SACD-capable.

I am using Marantz SA-1 for both SACD and CD playback and own roughly 30-40 SACD for the moment. I tend to agree with Myraj that SACD quality does vary, especially the Sony/CBS reissues. For example, "Time Out" and Beethovan 6th/Walter is much better than the CD(although not as warm as the original LP.) But the Wagner suites/Szell absolutely sucks.

Telarc is generally acceptable and most of the Groove Note and FIM are the must-haves.
More to discover