2. digital
  3. 1035223590

SACD - M. Davis - So What

I've just recently moved into the world of SACD.
The Sony DVP 900- with less than 48 hours break in(which may have some influence on what I'm writing).
I've only got the Sony double sampler SACD disc-some of the tracks do sound very good indeed so don't think I'm SACD bashing.
However here is my query for Audiogoners who have Miles Davis Kind Of Blue on SACD-how does it compare to the Mastersound CD( or the normal 20 bit remaster)?
To my weak ears on the only track I can compare the opening So What-the Mastersound sounds much better detailed and weighty in the bass department-I'm really quite surprised since the rest of the sampler disc sounds very good indeed even on older tracks like Santanna and Jeff Beck.
Anybody care to comment on Miles Davis on SACD in general and KOB in particular.
A search on Audio Asylum revealed some very different opinions so I'd be interested to hear Audiogon members view on this.
Thanks,
ben_campbell
phild
603 posts
 
Hey Ben, I'm not familiar with either the SACD or Mastersound (mine is the Columbia/Legacy), but...the details that you mentioned (fingers on strings) are the sorts of details that tend to rise to the top and become more audible the more a signal is compressed. Compressing the bass *could* produce the differences that you noticed. I'm not saying that's necessarily the case in this situation, but it's ALWAYS possible with modern redbook CDs (the labels have all gone compression crazy). One way to tell if that is the case is to listen to the dynamic range of both. If one is compressed more than the other it will not have the same range. Of course, a compressed signal could sound better. It all depends.

By the way...were you playing the redbook CD on the same machine, or a nicer CDP?? If you used different players, the difference could be due to better redbook CDP vs. cheap Sony SACD circuitry.
musicslug
430 posts
 
I had to break in both the redbook and SACD circuits on my 777. It took a long time but it's a dramatic improvement. Try your A-B comparison in a month or two (and if you only have a few sacds, leave them on repeat play to facilitate the break-in when you're not listening), then do your critical evaluation. To my ears, post-break-in, SACD sounds more like analog (and I play tons of vinyl) than redbook. The new Let It Bleed (Stones) SACD is amazing: it sounds like you're in the studio with the musicians and no amps or electronics. I suspect that if the music biz goes to all SACD processing (DSD from start to finish rather than old analog tapes converted to SACD), we'll be in for many treats...
trelja
3,224 posts
 
Ben, I apologize for misinterpreting your post.

I do not yet own "Kind Of Blue" on SACD, but I was fortunate enough to borrow a copy. As I said, the difference was most notable on upright bass and cymbals. I also was able to hear much deeper into the recording. The difference was night and day, and that is compared to my 20 bit CD which is supposed to be the best sounding CD version of KOB.

If you are a jazz fan, give a listen to Charles Mingus "Mingus Ah Um" SACD. You will be very impressed with the sound of his playing. It provides a great insight into the superiority of SACD over CD. Especially, below the midrange.
czbbcl's avatar
czbbcl
1,752 posts
 
My experience has been extremely positive with SACD. I find myself purchasing only SACD's because I find redbook so uninvolving. At this point in time SACD is as close to analog as digital gets (IMO). Of course others will beg to differ and that is their perogative. I for one believe SACD is where digital is going and will be the format of choice in years to come (IMO).

Chuck
djs
13 posts
 
You have hit smack into one of two problems fundamental to SACD, muddy fluctuating bass and poor high frequency articulation. Poor stability in the analog conversion results in rounded fluctuating very low frequencys while fundamental restrictions in the sampling accuracy results in sandy high frequency above about 10Khz. These two restrictions are balanced with the use of tube equipment however which are already weak in the base and tend to roll off high frequencys and smooth them out. This may explain why so many audiophiles do not here these two problems which are engineered into the format.
More to discover