Vinyl / High qual analog tape / High-res digital -- One of these is not like the other

kren0006,

I guess it is acceptable to metion experience/thoughts about SACD vs. CD here. No tape, though.

At the first listen, SACDs may sound strikingly "better". There simply feels there is "more of everything". I am not sure if that is because of mastering (or whatever other process may be involved in preparing material for SACD) or because of the medium itself. I will never know, but to me SACDs almost always sound like "more" than their regular CD counterpart. Those that are not that impressive, at least do not sound duller than a CD. Basically, if there is an option, I always buy a SACD and do not regret it. Anyone I presented with music at home, seemed impressed by SACDs.

That was an easy part. However, when comparing SACD and CD layers of the same SACD, on the same machine, it gets a little more slippery. I convinced myself that it is always worth choosing SACD layer, but I am not sure I would be able to discern the difference every time, if pressed to. That is why I am suspecting the processing before stamping may be as important as the medium itself, if not even more important. I assume, and have no knowledge of it, that preparing for SACD may make the engineer assume different expectations from customers and adjust the sound to them.

The most complicated part may be deciding if all those SACDs are, in fact, "better". I seem to like them more, but I cannot say that they are "more natural". They may be, but it is not that easy to claim for sure. Not even for classical music, although that is where I think they are definitely worth giving a shot.

If I were you and wanted to experiment, I would buy a SACD machine (basic ones can be really cheap), a few hybrid SACDs, and check the format out. If I liked it, I might buy a few more, but building the SACD library at this point is questionable endeavor for someone already familiar with streaming. There are plenty of DSF downloads out there and your DAC may be all you need.

I have had a very limited experience with Tidal (in audio stores), but from what I have heard selection and sound quality would not make me consider it at all. I think CDs, SACDs, or better downloads would be much better. Again, not much experience.

Here is just an example. It may be frowned upon as "not audiophile-worthy", but you can get some idea and it would not set you back by much...

https://www.ebay.com/itm/Vintage-Sony-SCD-CE595-5-Disc-CD-Changer-Working/114259185648?hash=item1a9a...

Thanks glupson.  Appreciate it.

"The sound of a very good well-tuned system can be expected to change week to week and day to day and hour to hour sometimes for any number of reasons."

Michael Green has entered the building.

roberttdid

No offence to Mike, but his room, his equipment, his sound, is still tuned to the sound he prefers, and that may even be a popular preference, but still a preference.

That's true of any audio system. An illusion is the best any system can create, and even the best illusions are imperfect. So it is always about preference.

I find listening to our main system far more pleasing than reference headphones, but when I need to pick out fine details, the reference headphones are my go to, and even those I have a few of and they all sound different.

Same here. At least with headphones, you eliminate any effects that are the result of room acoustics.

mikelavigne,

"so if you compare the golden age of 2 channel analog it’s mid 50’s to around 1970. you have the relative purity of the process and the gear. those recordings are hard for digital to compete with. plus in many ways the expectations to make ’live’ recordings were much greater on the artists. and more resources were devoted to the process by the labels. the best of this era can’t be touched by the digital era."



I would tend to agree. All of that cramming more and more tracks onto the same tape (ofen 1/4 inch) can’t have helped things, nor the bouncing down that was regularly employed increasingly throughout the late 60s/70s. Nor the loss of that ’live’ sound after innumerable takes. No wonder the lo-fi Nebraska sounds so fresh.

I think the main issue is whether the industry has even ever cared about sound quality? All the evidence I’ve seen suggests that sound quality was always a minor, maybe even a trivial concern for them. And it wasn’t all Phil Spector’s fault.

What about the artists themselves?
Certain bands like Pink Floyd and Steely Dan seem to have cared about their sound, maybe a few others like Dylan and Kate Bush too, but how many of the others? Obviously, not too many.

Apparently a new Dylan album is out soon. Should be interesting to see how it sounds / was recorded etc.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/culture/2020/06/bob-dylan-rough-rowdy-ways-album-review.amp

As an aside, I think you were quite brave on taking that controlled cable (or was it messing with your mind?) challenge. Especially with the results posted online.

http://www.avsforum.com/forum/86-ultra-hi-end-ht-gear-20-000/941184-observations-controlled-cable-te...