Axiom Home Page Forums General Discussion Stereo SACD's....don't jump on the band wagon....just yet

" 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.