2. music
  3. 1099889932

SACD/CD Question

I've got a question for you SACD guys. I don't have SACD, but have a high-quality two-channel system. I recently bought my first so-called hybrid compatible CD/SACD, a Sony recording, made live in the Berlin Philharmonie in 2002, of the Tchaikovsky Piano Concerto played by Arcadi Volodos, with the Berlin Philharmonic under Seiji Ozawa. I have no idea what this one sounds like on an SACD system, but on my two-channel system the orchestral sound is just conspicuously AWFUL! This was all the more surprising to me because I'd earlier bought the same pianist's performance of the Rachmaninoff Third Piano Concerto, also recorded live, in the same hall, in 1999, with the same orchestra under James Levine, also on Sony (but with a different recording engineer), and this one's NOT a hybrid compatible CD/SACD but a plain stereo CD, and it sounds just fine. Can anyone shed some light on what is going on here? I'm reluctant now to buy any more so-called hybrid compatible CD/SACD discs after getting burned.
texasdave
rtn1
535 posts
 
The acoustics for Berlin recordings are sometimes problematic. For a blazing Tchaikovsky #1 in great sound consider Argerich with Chailly. She sometimes drives the music too hard, but excells with Russian composers. Look for the older edition on Phillips with Rachmaninov #3. I believe the newly remastered version of Rach #3 on Philips 50 has deleted the Tchaikovsky #1.

I also like Pletnev on Virgin, which contains all the Tchaikovsky piano concertos. There's others to consider, but these have great sound. Sell your Volodos on Amazon marketplace.

Also, if you want to get the best out of your redbook CDs, consider Walker Audio Vivid Enhancer.

Rob
wildoats
339 posts
 
I disagree with those who say don't buy a sacd hybrid unless you are going to buy a sacd player in the near future. From my experience so far, the cd layer on a hybrid is the best sounding version of the performance (when comparing it to other cd versions). They also can be had for not much more or less than than a regular cd. I bought the Stones hybrids for $ 9.99, the others for prices ranging from $11.99 to $18. Examples of good sounding hybrids, Stones, Dylan, Who, Junior Wells, Coltrane/Monk, and the Animals retrospective. Why would you buy the cd only version of these when the hybrid sounds better, for pretty much the same price? In addition, if you ever decide you want an sacd player, you've already got a start on your collection. I don't understand what the downside is if you don't buy an sacd player? I do understand why you wouldn't want to buy the sacd ONLY version. Then you have to have a sacd player.
gaudio_eek
312 posts
 
Well said Wildoats. I'm currently doing the same in purchasing new music. If there is a hybrid SACD version of the same music, I would choose the hybrid if it means spending $1 or $3 more.
kr4's avatar
kr4
3,691 posts
 
There's no assurance that the CD layer is superior to a contemporary Redbook release. If you want to compare hybrid CD layer with previous/older issues, that's another story.

Kal
aceto
273 posts
 
Without any corroborating evidence, I must mention that in the print media I noticed a story that said these bi-discs would have intentional degradation of the sound quality of the old format, another said that the player would degrade the old sound. This sounds somewhere between an ambush on the writer's side so conspiracy on the issuer side. But I do like my Phillips 963 and buy hybrids or straight sacd or dvd. It is rare that I buy a straight CD anymore. I am afraid of the future of my investment past and future in CD for format turnover. Oddly, I feel much safer buying a new LP.
More to discover