Dylan

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 6:34 pm

lukpac wrote: I've done a few comparisons, and I honestly don't think I could tell the difference between the CD and SACD layers on those discs.

Ryan wrote:I was less-than-impressed with the SACD layers of the Stones stuff as well, but I've heard other SACDs that were pretty amazing (Gaucho, Stardust, Ghost in the Machine to name a few).

I don't know why I'm bothering to write this. I should just go to an audio shop and compare SACD and redbook layers myself. But instead. . . . The comments above are indicative of the thousands I've read in the last year. Here are two people whose opinions I respect, while agreeing that mastering is most important, disagree on the sonic advantages to SACD. What gives? I arrived very late to the CD revolution [and missed out on a lot of those flat-transferred, unfussed with original issues . . . damn!] and would appear to be arriving late to this one as well. I don't have a player. In fact, I've yet to even listen to an SACD.

Has anyone published a blind test where a majority of listeners selected the SACD layer as the one they think sounds best? Something like that might get me to do some serious A/b-ing.

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 7:02 pm

FWIW, like I've said, I've only heard the Stones discs. Of course, I've heard reviews of those that says the SACD layer "blows away" the CD layer, but...

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 7:30 pm

Well, my Dylan set is now sitting at the post office, so I'll have it in my mitts tomorrow. I'll see if I can carve out some time in the next few days to do some serious A/Bing of the two layers.

I don't think I'm disagreeing much with Luke, though. All he's heard are the Stones discs, and I agree with him that there's not a breathtaking difference between the layers there.

Ryan

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:11 pm

lukpac wrote:I've done a few comparisons, and I honestly don't think I could tell the difference between the CD and SACD layers on those discs.

Luke, I took this statement to mean that whereas you only own the Stones discs, that you have heard others and have based your opinion of SACDs on those comparisons as well. But if all you've heard 'till now is the Stones stuff, then does it make much sense to write "am I the only one that thinks that SACD isn't all *that* great?" A bit premature, no?

Ryan wrote:Well, my Dylan set is now sitting at the post office, so I'll have it in my mitts tomorrow. I'll see if I can carve out some time in the next few days to do some serious A/Bing of the two layers.

Before listening to any of the discs, how about a "blind test" to better serve all mankind? Ryan, have your sig other switch back and forth between layers and you note which you like better. Be sure to keep score and publish your results here ASAP. And no peeking!

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:21 pm

Ron wrote:Luke, I took this statement to mean that whereas you only own the Stones discs, that you have heard others and have based your opinion of SACDs on those comparisons as well.

See the "those discs" note.

But if all you've heard 'till now is the Stones stuff, then does it make much sense to write "am I the only one that thinks that SACD isn't all *that* great?" A bit premature, no?

Considering the context (I wasn't trying to say I've heard more than I have), not really. Besides, when I hear people talk about how great the SACD layer is compared to the CD layer on the Stones discs, I have to wonder what some people are hearing (or think they are hearing).

Postby **lukpac** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 8:22 pm

BTW, I just realized that I own a Sam Cooke SACD, although that was done by the same team (for the most part) that did the Stones discs.

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Mon Sep 22, 2003 9:41 pm

lukpac wrote:
Ron wrote:Luke, I took this statement to mean that whereas you only own the Stones discs, that you have heard others and have based your opinion of SACDs on those comparisons as well.

See the "those discs" note.

OK, I took "those discs" to refer to those with which you did A/B comparisons. So again, if "those discs" refer *only* to the Stones stuff, then I have to reiterate that it's premature for you do draw any real conclusions ["am I the only one that thinks that SACD isn't all *that* great?"] regarding the sonic merits of the SACD format. After all, the Stones reissues are a very small sampling from which to derive an opinion [regardless of what others have had to say about the SACD layer on those discs]. In your heart you know I'm right.

thomh · Postby **thomh** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 3:46 am

lukpac wrote:Considering the context (I wasn't trying to say I've heard more than I have), not really. Besides, when I hear people talk about how great the SACD layer is compared to the CD layer on the Stones discs, I have to wonder what some people are hearing (or think they are hearing).

Excellent point, Luke.

Let us look at some basic facts with regards to these old master tapes (Stones and Dylan). Because of the technological limitations at the time these classics were recorded there is no information above 20kHz and a dynamic range that is most assuredly below 90dB. Hence, there just isn't *any* information on those tapes beyond the limitations of 16/44 CD. A SACD re-master may sound *different*, but that won't be because it's getting any extra *information* from the master tapes.

Aside from the multichannel aspect, the only benefit of SACD as I can see it is that there seems to be a lot more care taken in mastering inorder to prove the "superiority" of it. Which is a good thing. I have CDs which sound magnificent, and that, to me, is pretty good evidence that there is not a problem with the medium but rather in the recording and mastering process.

IMO, of course.

Thom

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 8:04 am

Ron wrote:Before listening to any of the discs, how about a "blind test" to better serve all mankind? Ryan, have your sig other switch back and forth between layers and you note which you like better. Be sure to keep score and publish your results here ASAP. And no peeking!

Great idea. Unfortunately, the sig other is currently working nights getting ready to stage manage a production of Bat Boy: The Musical, officially licensed by the Weekly World News. (We're very excited.) So she's unavailable for knob monkey work (ooo-er!) for a while. And I ain't gonna wait that long.

But I'll leave a couple aside for that purpose, and in the meantime let you know what I think in a non-blind setting. The box is sitting in my car as I type this -- I just have to get through the work day. (I'm gonna pick up the new DVD of A Mighty Wind today, too, which will be an interesting chaser.)

Ryan

Ron · Postby **Ron** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 4:44 pm

Well, I just got up--which means your working day is damned near finished so you'll be able to begin listening very shortly. Looking forward to your report. [Though admittedly I'm kinda hoping for an "eh?" response to the SACD layer. If it can be shown that there really *isn't* much difference between layers, then I'll be saving myself oodles of money on hardware & software. I guess I'm a selfish bastard, though in a fun-lovin' sort of way.]

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:04 pm

Before I get started, here's a note of silliness. From the shrinkwrap sticker on Infidels:

Rock guitar meets Jamaican rhythm on eight vital Dylan songs! All-star band includes Mark Knopfler, Mick Taylor (formerly with the Stones and famous rhythm section), Sly Dunbar & Robbie Shakespeare

So I guess in addition to all his other talents, Mick is now a famous rhythm section. Whatta guy! (Who needs proofreaders, anyway?)

OK, on with the show. I want to listen for some stuff for pleasure tonight, so I may only do one for today, but I intend to do a reasonably thorough look at several of the titles, just because I want to spite SH.tv by posting as much useful content here as I can. (See the "Andrew Sandoval" thread for my motivation.)

This is what I'm listening on:

- Sony SCD-CE775 CD/SACD player
- Yamaha RX-596 receiver (no digital nuthin, all analog signal path)
- NHT SB3 speakers
- JVC L-FX2 piece o' crap turntable

I'm not going to directly compare the 5.1 tracks to anything, since they're very different beasts (and I listen to those on a completely different system).

Without further ado.... (first shootout in next post)

Ryan

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 6:25 pm

BOB DYLAN SACD SHOOTOUT
Part One - Blood On The Tracks

Track sampled: Meet Me In The Morning

The contenders:

LP - Columbia PC 33235 (supposedly purchased week of release by my in-laws -- it has the liner notes in black on the back and a solid red inner sleeve)
This sounds nice -- natural, lots of "air" around the instruments, good definition of all the elements. Bass is a bit murky but reasonably deep. Vocals are laid back and smooth. Solo at the end has nice bite.

-----------

CD - Columbia CK 33235 (early Made in USA issue)
Ugh. This is harsh and edgy. The vocals are upfront more but are way harsh. The bass is tighter but not as deep as the LP. All the air is sucked out of the soundstage -- the instruments sound piled on top of each other, like it was recorded in a tiny closet. End solo lacks the punch of the LP.

-----------

SACD - Columbia CH 90323 (note to catalog number geeks -- Sony hybrids have an "H" designation while single-layers are marked "S")

CD layer: A bit louder than the original CD, but not by a lot. Bass is deeper, vocals are smoother (and still more upfront than the LP). Still not enough "air." The highs are OK, but the cymbals sound a bit "tizzy."

SACD layer: Sorry, Ron. The "air" is back! Tight, deep bass. Highs are crystal clear without the slight fuzziness on the CD layer. If you like the smooth, laid-back sound of the LP, you still might prefer that version, as this sacrifices some of that for greater detail and presence. I *think* the dynamics are a bit better than on the CD layer as well -- the end solo has the bite of the LP.

-----------

So there ya go. Definitely worth an upgrade from the old CD, even on the CD layer only. I think the SACD layer is an additional step beyond the CD layer -- it has the "spaciousness" of the LP without the surface noise.

Next up (probably tomorrow): Highway 61 Smackdown -- DCC vs. SACD! (With the LP thrown in for giggles.)

Ryan

stereo71 · Postby **stereo71** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 7:11 pm

Thanks, Ryan. I'll have to get this one too---I always did think the original CeeDee sucked, as compared to the original vinyl. Last night I brought home Blonde on Blonde, and giving it a quick listen, am pretty sure its 2-CH layer is the same as the earlier SACD. Which is to say, great! Can't do 5.1 yet...I also have the Sundazed mono Lp, but I can't decide which I prefer. They are both good for what they are. Comparisons here are probably meaningless, due to the different media.

Can you confirm that other tracks from BOTT are similar in sound presentation to "Meet Me in the Morning"? Mostly like the Lp is good news as far as I am concerned.

What I really would like to find is that Freewheelin' and Times sound as good or better than the old 2-eye Lps. Call me crazy, but this is the Dylan I first heard and marvelled at--the expressiveness in his voice, and the room echo of the guitar, were just so *real*. You know, the (mostly) unjaded Dylan, still trying to honestly push his message. Man, what a time...

--Roger

Rspaight · Postby **Rspaight** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 7:33 pm

Can you confirm that other tracks from BOTT are similar in sound presentation to "Meet Me in the Morning"?

Yes, they're all pretty similar in character. That was just the only track I listened closely to on all four sources. (I listened to the whole album in 5.1, by the way, and that's pretty amazing.)

I'm a big fan of the first BoB SACD, and I'm glad to hear the stereo mix has remained the same (I won't need to hang onto both versions).

I just listened to Freewheelin', as a matter of fact. Man, that harmonica could sterilize frogs at twenty paces! But it's always sounded that way. Seemed nicely detailed and "real" (Bob sounds like he's in the room). I'll eventually dig out the LP (not a two-eye, unfortunately) and old CD and do a comparo on that one.

Ryan

Patrick M · Postby **Patrick M** » Tue Sep 23, 2003 9:49 pm

Rspaight wrote:Great idea. Unfortunately, the sig other is currently working nights getting ready to stage manage a production of Bat Boy: The Musical, officially licensed by the Weekly World News. (We're very excited.) So she's unavailable for knob monkey work (ooo-er!) for a while. And I ain't gonna wait that long.

Whoa! Coming to Lexington in October? I gotta see that.