0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 16448 times.
By the way, for Sea Change you MUST hear the 5.1 Elliot Scheiner surround mix.
If you are listening to your SACD's via the Audio Note you are listening to the cd layer (unless you rip to DSD like me)
The Hi Rez bubble, to me, is like champagne instead of beer; limo instead of driving.
I think he rips them to his computer since he doesn't list a conventional disc player in his system, but of course, I don't know how he rips them. Actually, (I don't know how to rip them. I tried the de-embeder thing though, and that was fun! And I did hear a difference, but it gave me more questions than answers.I used an Oppo 83 into a de-embeder, and the de-embeder's spdif into my AN DAC. I heard an obvious difference between the SACD layer from the oppo and the CD from my transport with my Rolling Stones hybrid SACD. But I honestly don't know what I was hearing and why. In other words, was the bulk of the remastering effort put into the SACD layer and not into the redbook layer? Or are the two layers made from the same remaster with the redbook layer SRC'd to 16/44? This would make it an unfair comparison. I would have to find a good redbook remaster to compare the two. These are the things that I will probably never know because I don't want to spend my money purchasing multiple copies of the same album.It would be nice to know before you buy a hi rez recording that it was actually mastered natively in hi rez. Although we have the same problem with redbook discs now, don't we? How many were remastered in 24/96 and then SRC'd to 16/44? Maybe I'm picking nits. As far as listening to the CD layer on an Audio Note DAC, all Audio Note DACs will lock onto a 88.2 or 96kHz signal and retrieve a maximum of 18 bits. You should be able to capture the lion's share of a hi rez signal with that. I think the higher sampling rate alone would be worth the effort, but again only if the recording was done at that rate. I only own 2 SACDs right now, so I guess I still have a lot to learn. Just can't seem to get motivated.I'd like to see the recording industry get a handle on this hi rez stuff, and make it more clear what you are really buying when you buy it. Maybe someday . . . .
Jerry is the 1%
Ok a little perspective here:Did some comparisons today. First off was Dire Straits bros in arms (BIA) on 20th Anniversary sacd and the very same BIA on XRCD rip last (and definitely least) off the shelf BIA 16/44.1 ripped from cd. Both via the same system same SB etc. I did not volume match so please stop reading now if you're one of those people. I also listened to Beck Sea Change in the following 4 formats: 24/96 dvda rip, 24/176 sacd rip and MFSL 16/44.1 and finally the standard redbook 16/44. Last I listened to Stevie Wonder cut 'Living for the City' in 16/44 off of a rip from 'SW at the close of the century' and 24/96 off of the new HD tracks Innervision (buy it, it's awesome!).Here were the results:BIA1. by a long shot SACD rip. This one was obvious. Much more clarity especially to cymbals. Subtlety is the biggest distinguishing factor here. Much more delicacy. It just exemplifies what hi rez is supposed to do, there is just more information here folks.2. XRCD Tonally the slightly less hot twin of the SACD rip. Does nothing wrong, but clearly lacks in every other category compared to SACD. Bass is looser and lacks definition.3. off the shelf redbook exemplified exactly what is wrong with most redbook material. Terrible harshness in cymbals. Very in your face ugly sounding vocals and things just sound loud and obnoxious. Absolutely unacceptable. By far the worst, it stands as an example of why I feel the way I do about redbook.Beck Sea Changes:24/176 SACD rip: Really harsh sounding cymbals, tinny sounding guitar, vocals have way too much emphasis in the 2-4 kHz region. This has always been a disappointing album sound quality wise. I think this is an example of why many people might think that SACD is not a great format.24/96 DVDa rip: Better than the harsh sacd, but far from good. that said less harshness in the vocals, but all other issues seem to remain.16/44 MFSL rip: Wow.... This is MUCH better than either DVDa or SACD harshness gone, tinny guitar gone, cymbal crunchiness gone. This is awesome, but before you get the wrong idea, this is still not in the same category as the BIA SACD rip. Not by a long shot. It's simply acceptable and nothing detracts from the listening experience like the others do16/44 conventional redbook. Just as bad as the SACD rip. I really think the SACD rip was done incorrectly This basically proves it.Stevie Wonder Living for the City24/96 rip. Wow! This is fantastic. I have never ever heard the detail in this song so keenly and naturally. I hear nuance in the synth bass that I assumed was never there. It is... and it's insane. Vocals that make you feel Wonders foreboding and frustrated lyrics. This is one of the best sounding purchases I have ever made from HD tracks easily! It exemplifies what hi rez is about!16/44 standard. I don't think this is a remaster or anything special so YMMV. Very ugly in vocals. Rather than emotive and foreboding, Wonders voice just sounds angry and shouty. Synth bass nuance is just plain gone. It sounds like all the crapola you hear on the radio. So, while it may not be always 100% straight forward it is certainly my opinion that, when done right, any and all hi rez formats just plain sound better than redbook. My two favorite experiences with this little session were the BIA rip and the Stevie Wonder rip by a wide margin. The one time CD outperformed SACD or DVDa it did so in a way that made the music 'listenable' not what I would call a superior experience. thanks for reading!
So, how much did it cost to find the best playback of BIA?
So, while it may not be always 100% straight forward it is certainly my opinion that, when done right, any and all hi rez formats just plain sound better than redbook.
By the way, for Sea Change you MUST hear the 5.1 Elliot Scheiner surround mix. And for 2 channel you MUST MUST hear MFSl redbook version (yes, I said redbook ). To my ears the definitive 2 channel version, even over my DVD-A and SACD rips. And a slightly different mix, with some songs several seconds longer. A sublime version.
