I realized the other day, that I have owned, (thru many years) all releases of : Frampton comes alive!
I am going to use this "experience" to give a non-scietific
review of the various sound quality differences, per type of "disc".
The main thrust of this review is the SACD vs. the re-mastered HDCD versions.
I traded in my original, 2-disc set of FCA, at my local used cd shop, (scuff's) SO...this review will consist of:FCA SCAD 25th anniversary edition,...surround, plus high resolution stereo, 2-disc. Re-mastered classics version 1-disc, and FCA 25th annivrsary deluxe edition.
Although I have the LP's, and cassettes...I think a review of those would be moot.
I tested the (1-disc) RM cd first,...the sound mastering levels were up a bit, over "regular" discs. I played the disc at: -44.5db...the sound quality was fair, but there was distortion on some tracks...not present on any of the other discs I "tested".(Including the original cds).
I tested the SCAD, and thought this would be THE definitive version. No, in fact not even close! I had to play that disc at: -16.0db to set the volume level close to the RM cd.
Even then, the disc, sounded "flat" in compareson to the RM cd. This disc has regular stereo also, but my SCAD player will only play the SACD. I assume the stereo track would sound like the next discs I'm reviewing.
The next cd I am reviewing is: FCA 25th anniversay deluxe edition, 2-disc....HDCD, re-mixed, AND re-mastered. (I abhor the re-mixing of classic, analog music.)
This version, (which I bought on sale, and never expected too much) IS BY FAR THE "BEST".
I played these discs at: -44.5db....(to get the same volume level). Talk about a HUGE difference, one of the best "live" cds I've heard. The ONLY part that was a disappointment was, Frampton's guitar was mixed too far "back"...it kinda lost that "edge", BUT...considering some of the ham-fisted remixes of classic rock cd's I've heard....I can live with it.
In conclusion, I have found by using the same gear, settings, listening situation, etc. and having the unique opportunity to test ALL the cd versions out there, against each other, (that's why I used the Frampton cds) the SACD's are NOT in my non-scientific opinion, always the "best" possible format.
So......before you feel you MUST have a SCAD player, do some more checking on your own, FIRST.
I hope some will find this "review" interesting, and helpful.
Larry
Out of all the SACDs I have (20 or so) FCA is by far the worst, and I dont think it represents SACD as a whole.
The best in my collection would be Elton John Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Pink Floyd Dark Side of The Moon and Michael McDonald Motown probably in that order.
Other well mastered SACDs Alison Krause+Union Station New Favorite and The Police Every Breath You Take.
About 1/4 of my SACDs are poorly mastered. Another 1/4 are 2 channel SACDs which I personaly cant tell the difference between them and a regular cd.
Brady,
I used FCA....so as to compare apples to apples..I'M VERY familiar with the sound of both FCA, and many of the discs you named.
Maybe FCA was not the best possible choice for testing, but I was "testing" the technology.......not which SCAD, or cd has the best sound, overall.
LT
The playback volume level of SACS's vs. CD's IMHO is not a valid criteria to judge the quality of the SACD recording. In my experience SACD playback volume is always quite a bit lower than standard CD's at the same volume control adjustment. I do agree with you that SACD's aren't always better. It really comes down to the quality of the original recording, and how well the SACD version was mastered. There are a few classic rock SACD's worth listening to: Pink Floyd DSOM (everyone knows this one), Santana Abraxis is also really good. On the flip side, i have listed to quite of few of the Police albums on SACD's and they are are horrible IMHO.
I am a rock fan, but It's hard to find any rock or pop music recorded well, and even harder to find any on SACD or DVD-A worth listening to. Sting's solo albums seem to be well recorded, I have 2 on DVD-A.
Recently I've been getting into jazz, mostly because the recording quality is great, and it really shows off what M80's can do (and the equipment driving them).
At the risk of sounding defensive, I didn't word that too well.....I was calling attention to the volume difference......not using that fact to judge the SACD.
Sorry.
But in this case all you are really testing is the mastering of the SACD version of FCA. That is not a good way to "test" the viability of the SACD technology as a whole. I would think a better way, is to find a well recorded an mastered SACD and compare it to the original. Plus "live" records are notoriuosly poorly recorded as compared to studio records. There is no way to control the acoustic environment in an arena or concert hall, as well as you can in a recording studio.
I think the original recording quality, and the expertise that was employed in the mastering process is far more important that the technology that was used to encode the disc, CD, SACD, DVD-A.
I'm not sure you read all of my post(s)..........the discs I "reviewed".....ALL used the same, analog master tape source material. ANY flaws would have to be delt with in each discs mastering process, therefore...apples to apples.
I did say non-scientific, didn't I?
Tough crowd.
Sorry Larry' not trying to be a tough crowd. I think it was the title of your post that threw me.
I wouldnt base my decision nor would I want anyone else to base there decision to SACD or not on FCA.
I understand now you were just compareing apples to apples, and I appreciate your review.
Yah, no worries Larry... it's just that the thread title suggested that the SACD format was intrinsically weak. Maybe more like "FCA SACD's...don't waste your money!"
eventhough it is the same master source, an engineer was still involved to mix the SACD.
I have heard SACD's and DVD-A's that do not sound as good as the original redbook.....and some that sound much better.
They all had "engineers"...... I stand by my, un-official, un-scientific, un-authorized, poorly titled, inadvertent, SACD bashing, test results.
Larry....hope you didn't take offense to my post.
I was just saying that some engineers are better than others, and that mixing SACD's and DVD-A's definitely shows it.
Of course not!.........in fact, I'm already busy with my next, less controversial post, titled: Monster cables.."how they help with speaker break-in".
LOL....oh Monster.
When I was at CES, I was on the monorail with some Monster reps. I wanted to ask them questions....but I held back.
Curtis
That was once in a lifetime chance.
I can just imagine that conversation.
Hey!
Wait a minute!
Monster Cables don't help break in your speakers faster?
The kid at Radio Shack told me that if I Tri-Wired my M60's they would be broken in in a Third of the time!
And, as for me, I'm waiting to upgrade to the SACD thing when they release the Who's Live at Leeds in the special 4 disc set (I think I've only owned 4 different versions of this one so far!)because the 4th disc is going to include 68 minutes of Keith Moon puking backstage before AND after the show!
;-)
TjB
In reply to:
Out of all the SACDs I have (20 or so) FCA is by far the worst, and I don't think it represents SACD as a whole. The best in my collection would be Elton John Goodbye Yellow Brick Road, Pink Floyd Dark Side of The Moon..
AMEN!!! I was terribly disappointed by the FCA SACD. It is very poorly mixed. It was the worst classic SACD until I got Layla, which is even worse. Note this is not an artistic judgment, but solely the acoustic quality of the mix.
It's not the high sample rate, it's the mix quality that makes the difference. Of course quality of the original master tapes is a factor -- you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear.
It's a good idea to test using familiar material. However when that material is below a certain quality, it can work against you.
In addition to the above albums, these are great high-res multichannel albums: Eagles - Hotel California (DVD-A), Fleetwood Mac - Rumours (DVD-A), Roxy Music - Avalon (SACD), David Bowie - Ziggy Stardust (SACD).
What do you benefit from SACD that you do not from a standard redbook? Is it surround sound? Or is it remastered to sound excellent in stereo?
The short and simplistic version of the answer is that some SACDs are in surround sound, while others are in stereo. All are mastered at higher sample rates, etc, than redbook CDs, for improved fidelity.
Surround can be great, or it can be gimmicky and done poorly. The best ones are immersive, the less impressive ones just pull out bags of tricks by, for example, having lead vocals bouncing around from speaker to speaker for no real reason (occasionally this can be effective, but usually not). I have not listened to any Stereo SACDs as of now, but I plan on picking a few up, as I know they'll have better sound than the redbook CDs I have.
" I have not listened to any Stereo SACDs as of now, but I plan on picking a few up, as I know they'll have better sound than the redbook CDs I have. "
I can tell very little or any difference beteween the two. If it was my money, I'd save it.
Well, I'm not buying SACDs of CDs I already have. I wasn't very clear. I just meant I would get the SACD version of an album as opposed to the standard if I didn't have it, because it will sound better.
And I should hasten to add that at some shops (online, mostly, though some b&m), stereo SACDs cost only a few cents more than the standard, so even if it doesn't improve the sound, I feel no harm no foul, and it also helps keep the format in general afloat.
In reply to:
What do you benefit from SACD that you do not from a standard redbook? Is it surround sound? Or is it remastered to sound excellent in stereo?
Traditional wisdom is the much higher sample rate (2.8 megabit/sec) provides better sound.
However actual experience shows the limiting factor in sound quality is not usually sample rate or dynamic range, but quality of the original material and the mix (regardless whether stereo or surround).
The above-mentioned Frampton Comes Alive album is a good example. It's multichannel SACD, mastered to disk at 2.8 megabit/sec, yet sounds pretty bad.
IMO the best multichannel SACD or DVD-A discs are better than the stereo counterparts. But not because of sample rate or dynamic range.
Rather the surround configuration gives a broader acoustic pallet for the mixing engineer to place sonic textures. Intelligently used it sounds superb. Improperly used it sounds contrived, gimmicky, distracting.
As already mentioned there aren't many great sounding multichannel SACDs. Many of the classic albums are quite old so this limits the original master quality. Also mixing engineers (as a group) are just learning how to properly use surround.
In general a great sounding stereo album if remixed PROPERLY for multichannel SACD/DVD-A will sound even better.
A poor sounding stereo album is problematic. Often even a good multichannel remix can't salvage it.
OTOH you can make significant improvements. The old Elton John albums were just released in multichannel SACD: Honky Chateau, Madman Across the Water. In stereo (even digitally remastered CDs) they sounded pretty flat and muddy. The SACD multichannel remix sounds considerably better, but nowhere near Yellow Brick Road, Dark Side of the Moon, or Eagles - Hotel California (DVD-A).
Surround mixes seem to be successful in two contexts:
1. Making you feel like you're "there" amongst the musicians. In other words, not a lot of bouncing around amongst the speakers; rather, instruments are placed logically so it feels like you are enveloped by the music. Much as a conductor of an orchestra might, or as a person standing in the middle of a band while they're playing.
2. When the bouncing sound works; generally, the over-there-no!-it's-over-there-now kind of surrounds work in music that is in itself "unnatural." Having an acoustic guitar flying all over the place on a Dylan track would be awful. But on something like Nine Inch Nails, where even the natural instruments have been manipulated into studio noise, it can be quite effective. I guess the simpler generalized rule would be "studio as an instrument" music works well with this kind of surround style. On the other hand, having Greg Lake's vocals hop around the speakers during Karn Evil 9 is just a gimmick, and an annoying one at that.
I am thrilled with most of my SACDs (and DVD-As), but they can be complete and utter failures; worse than the standard two-channel mix, that's for sure. But when done right, it's a whole new level of experiencing music at home.
In reply to:
having Greg Lake's vocals hop around the speakers during Karn Evil 9 is just a gimmick, and an annoying one at that
I totally agree. ELP's Brain Salad Surgery (DVD-A) was a very early surround album, and IMO the mixing technique is a classic example of what NOT to do.
I'm not so much interested in he muli-channel as I am in pure sound quality but from what you guys are saying there really is nothing we can do because of the way the songs were recorded poorly from the start.
That is sometimes true....but, often the "record" companies won't take the time, or money to do all that can be done for the old classic's. Some ARE poorly recorded and/or mixed, but you would be surprised just how good some of the analog classics COULD sound, (AND sometimes do) on various cd formats........ if economiclly feasible for the company. (on some classics just play the LP, and see for yourself).
In reply to:
I'm not so much interested in he muli-channel as I am in pure sound quality but from what you guys are saying there really is nothing we can do because of the way the songs were recorded poorly from the start.
Multichannel and sound quality are often interrelated.
Unlike a simple digital remaster, a multichannel remix is a manual procedure that involves substantial artistic judgement. It's a big investment for the content producer. Therefore multichannel remixes (if done well) tend to sound good, especially now that more mixing engineers are familiar with it.
E.g. I have stereo digital remasters of the above mentioned old Elton John albums. They weren't much better than the originals. Yet the newly-released multichannel versions are considerably better. Not like Dark Side of the Moon, but better than the original stereo versions.
If a multichannel version is available I'd suggest getting that. If not, get the latest stereo version.