Is it worth buying SACD?

CJROSS said:
Enjoy the tunes for a while more like.

I wonder if you will be giving that advice to newbies into high resolution music when the rug is pulled from MC music, especially with SACD when Sony are seriously considering pulling the plug, DVD-A is being consigned to the bins with Dualdisc here now, and we are now being foisted with a dodgy format [Dualdisc] that has inherent manufacturing problems & limited audio width on its DVD-A/V layer. Oh and its only multichannel audio too (hooray I hear you cheer – but why has MC audio not set the heather laight to this point ?). Do you think the world is going to go Dualdisc crazy ? If so why not with DVD-A to this point ? Ovation you are doing new users into hifi/AV a disservice with advice like that TBH, I speak as someone who has been “burned” with promises of high resolution audio in the past, investing in kit to achieve it. Only to find the format dead (DVD-V DAD 24/96 stereo FYI).

To the original poster, yep go for SACD releases they generally have a very nice CD hybrid layer on them, so even if SACD does die, you will be left with a CD playable disc anyway, I guess Im one of the purists Ovation mentions as I have a very large collection of CD & Vinyl that needs to have stereo based equipment to sound its best, when you consider that most audiophiles agree that vinyl is the most realistic high resolution format [I enjoy CD as much as vinyl FWIW], then you can see why some purists find it funny to see SACD or DVD-A held aloft as the saviours of high resolution audio, especially thru a 5.1 AV MC system that sounds “hobbled” with CD or Vinyl. Another way to look at high resolution audio and the amount of releases is to comapre SACD or DVD-A / Dualdisc to Vinyl and compare what you can buy today. Multichannel High resolution formats can sound great, but there is a very limited supply, your kit will not do CD or Vinyl justice and as a result you will end up listening to a smaller amount of music in satisfaction.

Good luck.

When I say "purists" I mean those who sneer at MCH mixes as being "unnatural" or "gimmicky" after having been exposed to a few samples. Yes there are some poor MCH mixes out there. It is in its infancy, however. In the early days of stereo, there were "gimmicky" mixes too. They went out of style rather quickly. Or are you telling me that if you were 30 years older, you'd only listen to mono, because "stereo" is too gimmicky and unnatural? No? Well I've read many old reviews (I'm an historian and have a particular interest in popular culture) and the same complaints about MCH mixes I read now were made about "stereo" then by lots of people. Furthermore, "stereo" was conceived as THREE channels, not TWO (it means THREE-DIMENSIONAL, not TWO-CHANNEL) but the technology to play back three channels was not feasible at the time, so it was mixed down to two.

Are there excellent two channel mixes? Of course. And I don't advocate the end of two channel releases. However, I find well done, DISCRETE MCH mixes (not artificial DSP-generated MCH) extremely satisfying musically. I've been in recording studios (even recorded a tune or three myself) and I know what the immersive sound in those studios is like. MCH (esp. hi-res) captures that experience far more effectively than two channel ever could.

As to a "hobbled system". Well, we've had this discussion about $$$ vs performance and number of channels. I don't want to rehash that issue again. I will say, though, that it doesn't take an enormous amount of money to get decent sound, even from a "hobbled" system.

Here's my setup (no doubt you'll tell me how crappy it is in your reply):rolleyes:

Boston Acoustics VR-M60s front left and front right
Boston Acoustics VRC centre
Boston Acoustics VR-M50s surround left and surround right
Boston Acoustics PV900 subwoofer
Integra DTR 6.4 six-channel surround sound receiver/processor
Cambridge Audio 540D DVD-A/V/CD player
Marantz DV6400 universal player


The Integra has a PURE AUDIO mode that turns it into an integrated amp. I use the Cambridge for CD playback, as I did a head to head comparo with it and several dedicated CD players (including the 540C) and (along with the store owner, for whom the comparo was blind) found it the best CD player at it's price point and up to double that. For hi-res, I use the Marantz (whose CD performance is preferred by my fellow audio "nut" friend as it is a bit deeper in bass, but I prefer the Cambridge's wider soundstage). I'm not a believer in exotic interconnects and speaker cable, so no fancy names here for those. In the future, I plan to add a separate two channel pre-amp/amp or integrated for two channel listening, though the Integra does a pretty good job. My speakers are set up in the ITU configuration--to conform with the recommended standard for both mixing/mastering MCH audio and playback of the same.

This gear retails for 4500$C for the speakers, 1700$C for the receiver, 489$C for the Cambridge and 799$C for the Marantz for a total of 7488$C plus 15% GST. Not peanuts, but not outlandish. Certainly I could have purchased one player, one integrated and a great pair of speakers and had a wonderful two channel system. And someday, money and space willing, I will have a separate system for that purpose. But in the real world, where compromise is king (I also use this setup for movies), I still get what 95% of the listening audience would consider decent sound (in the general population, they'd probably call it "killer sound"). And I've listened to two channel systems that cost as much as my MCH setup. They're great, but the difference is not HUGELY spectacular.

You don't want MCH hi-res, you don't need to get it. But, I stand by my statement that MCH music is worth experiencing and, what's more, it doesn't have to cost a lot.

As for it disappearing, perhaps DVD-A and SACD and even DualDisc will not take off, but I'd not be too quick to write all of them off. The new hi-def DVD specs (both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) include MLP (DVD-A) as part of their specs. Lossless DTS is also on the way and when they finally reduce the connection complexity, MCH music will take off.

I'm not doing anyone a disservice. It doesn't cost that much to try MCH hi-res and if someone doesn't like it, they'll move to two channel anyway.

As for vinyl, well, in order to truly benefit from that, you need to sink a lot more money in that than you do to benefit from hi-res discs. I have friends with large vinyl collections and I agree it can sound wonderful (provided they're well treated and are of good quality pressings--not always the case), but for those who don't have a vinyl collection, I'm not sure I'd encourage them to get into it at this stage. But then again, I'm not a "purist". ;)
 
Ovation said:
As to a "hobbled system". Well, we've had this discussion about $$$ vs performance and number of channels. I don't want to rehash that issue again. I will say, though, that it doesn't take an enormous amount of money to get decent sound, even from a "hobbled" system.

Hmmm yep I think we will have to disagree about getting decent stereo sound from CD/Vinyl from a 5.1 system. For me were talking £1000 AV Pre - £1000 PA setup. £2000 that’s a lot of pennies comapred to say a £1000 stereo amp. No problem if AV/5.1 is your thang and your willing to pay that amount but if music (and I mean CD-Vinyl 2 channel) is your thang then your best concentrating on stereo.

Ovation said:
Here's my setup (no doubt you'll tell me how crappy it is in your reply):rolleyes:

Ovation do you have a chip on your shoulder about what others think of your system ?, your quote above indicates this I feel. I don’t think your system is crappy at all, but for stereo listening you can do a lot better at a fraction of the cost you have done there.

Ovation said:
In the future, I plan to add a separate two channel pre-amp/amp or integrated for two channel listening, though the Integra does a pretty good job.

Good to see you veering away from the dark side.

Ovation said:
Certainly I could have purchased one player, one integrated and a great pair of speakers and had a wonderful two channel system. And someday, money and space willing, I will have a separate system for that purpose. But in the real world, where compromise is king (I also use this setup for movies), I still get what 95% of the listening audience would consider decent sound (in the general population, they'd probably call it "killer sound"). And I've listened to two channel systems that cost as much as my MCH setup. They're great, but the difference is not HUGELY spectacular.

Right I think were getting somewhere here, I have approached my system building in a different vein, as music (hifi stereo – CD/Vinyl) is my main bag – I have assembled a system that is based around that and I have comprimised the 5.1 aspect for that, by just using my DVD-V player in stereo mode (firstly with good quality DACs to downmix 5.1 to stereo – now a benchmark DVD-V/A player – very good in stereo BTW) via my hifi, as my listening is 95% of my system use, with DVD-V visual use 5% it’s a compromise I can live with. The other aspect I have enjoyed in DVD-V music via stereo. But the fundamental point about the difference in systems Ovation is that 95% of time I use CD/Vinyl Im using kit optimally designed for the task. This is where out MC V Stereo empasse comes in. I think its down to system usage.

Which brings me to this thread, I think anyone thinking that MC/5.1 SACD or DVD-A/Dualdisc is the way forward for high resolution stereo is plain wrong, also suggesting to people thinking of investing in SACD 5.1 kit when they could be getting much better replay from stereo CD or Vinyl is the way to advise. As I mentioned before if you have 10X the ratio of CDs to 5.1 music that highlights where to spend your monies. Stereo will always be here in music terms, surely SACD & DVD-A are proof of that.

Ovation said:
You don't want MCH hi-res, you don't need to get it. But, I stand by my statement that MCH music is worth experiencing and, what's more, it doesn't have to cost a lot.

No it need not cost a lot, but when you run a CD/Vinyl format thru it – well you know the rest.


Ovation said:
As for it disappearing, perhaps DVD-A and SACD and even DualDisc will not take off, but I'd not be too quick to write all of them off. The new hi-def DVD specs (both Blu-Ray and HD-DVD) include MLP (DVD-A) as part of their specs. Lossless DTS is also on the way and when they finally reduce the connection complexity, MCH music will take off.

Ovation as much as I admire your dogged determinmation to see MC music take off, its simply not the case, there are a few reasons for this but the main one to me is that audiophiles who are into music and are willing to spend large amounts of loo-la on music reproduction systems have been noticable more for their disdain of MC music than their support. The other final point is why has SACD/DVD-A not taken off then ? Well your standard 5.1 user is a AV movie fan, not music. The cost – have you seen the cost of Dualdiscs ? £15 +PP in most cases, its going to die the same lingering death as the other MC music formats.

Multi-channel music (high res) and the kit its played on, is not wanted by a huge proportion of music fans, they would use high res stereo as that’s what their current huge collections are made up of (CD/Vinyl) but again the industry has spectacularly failed in this failed to see what the market wants and will buy into.

Ovation said:
As for vinyl, well, in order to truly benefit from that, you need to sink a lot more money in that than you do to benefit from hi-res discs. I have friends with large vinyl collections and I agree it can sound wonderful (provided they're well treated and are of good quality pressings--not always the case), but for those who don't have a vinyl collection, I'm not sure I'd encourage them to get into it at this stage. But then again, I'm not a "purist". ;)

Ovation yet another dodgy piece of advice to anyone considering getting vinyl : new releases on vinyl are 100 times more evident than SACD/DVDA/Ddisc as are the sales (new Vinyl trounced all the high res formats last year), then theres the second hand market, Oxfam et al. As for cost of equipment £150 on Projekt TT will see of many £300/400 CDPs, £500 on a RPM6, £650 Clearaudio Emotion not much will get near to these under £1000 in CDP terms, As for a Universal player below £1000 doing SACD/DVDA again not in the races. And I have not even begun to say what you can get 2nd hand wise below £1000 in TT terms.

Finally If you think Im a purist (I rate CD & Vinyl equally) then your barking up the wrong tree bro, I just have it in for MC high res stereo, give me stereo hi-res yes, but only MC and it’s a bit a joke for me and many other music/hifi orientated fans.
 
I'm with CJ- if you want a high res Audio format to invest in, buy a turntable.
 
CJROSS said:
Hmmm yep I think we will have to disagree about getting decent stereo sound from CD/Vinyl from a 5.1 system. For me were talking £1000 AV Pre - £1000 PA setup. £2000 that’s a lot of pennies comapred to say a £1000 stereo amp. No problem if AV/5.1 is your thang and your willing to pay that amount but if music (and I mean CD-Vinyl 2 channel) is your thang then your best concentrating on stereo.

If one were only going to listen to two channel, then I agree, my setup is not ideal (would spend the money for two speakers and a sub, rather than 5 and a sub and go with a nice pre/power amp). However, I don't think it's impossible to get decent stereo sound through a 5.1 system (simply add a pre/power amp or integrated and send two channel sources through it--though that incurs an additional cost).



Ovation do you have a chip on your shoulder about what others think of your system ?, your quote above indicates this I feel. I don’t think your system is crappy at all, but for stereo listening you can do a lot better at a fraction of the cost you have done there.

One, I apologize for the snarkiness. I wrote this late at night after a particularly trying day (I'm a stay at home dad to a three and a half year old, my wife is pregnant and was not having one of her better days, my mother-in-law is pulling shenanigans AND I've just started a new job as an online instructor for a community college).

Two, I would, however, take exception that I could do "a lot better" for stereo playback "at a fraction of the cost". I readily concede that if I took the same budget and devoted it to a two channel system, I would have something noticeably (though, again, judging from some two channel systems that cost the same as my setup, not ALWAYS spectacularly better). "A fraction of the cost" would have to be a pretty sizable fraction.



Good to see you veering away from the dark side.
I've never denied that a dedicated two channel system is best for two channel music. I don't run my two channel material through surround sound processors to create artificial MCH music. But, though I use my setup for music around 70% of the time, hi-res MCH and MCH concert DVDs make up a noticeable portion of my musical listening habits AND 30% for movies is a sizable enough portion to warrant a 5.1 system. Again, I don't begrudge people from going two channel (I have a very good friend who's looking to re-enter hifi in a pretty serious fashion, and I have counseled him towards two channel systems exclusively--knowing his preferences, available space and budget--but I do suggest he include hi-res if it fits his budget. We'll see).



Right I think were getting somewhere here, I have approached my system building in a different vein, as music (hifi stereo – CD/Vinyl) is my main bag – I have assembled a system that is based around that and I have comprimised the 5.1 aspect for that, by just using my DVD-V player in stereo mode (firstly with good quality DACs to downmix 5.1 to stereo – now a benchmark DVD-V/A player – very good in stereo BTW) via my hifi, as my listening is 95% of my system use, with DVD-V visual use 5% it’s a compromise I can live with. The other aspect I have enjoyed in DVD-V music via stereo. But the fundamental point about the difference in systems Ovation is that 95% of time I use CD/Vinyl Im using kit optimally designed for the task. This is where out MC V Stereo empasse comes in. I think its down to system usage.

I entirely agree. You've focused your system on your preferences. An excellent policy. However, you would agree, I hope, that if MCH is a major focus, then one should make provisions in that area. If you want a more eloquent advocate of MCH hi-res than me ;) (and certainly someone who has solid audiophile credentials) I suggest checking out the following link:

http://www.stereophile.com/musicintheround/

Kal posts at AVS Forum (the US version of this site) and elsewhere. His articles went a long way toward increasing my appreciation for MCH music and have provided a number of examples of well recorded titles. He's a bit more traditionalist than I am (he greatly prefers the "ambient hall" mixes whereas I find the "in the band/studio" mixes equally enjoyable). His articles also discuss, apart from titles, any number of "audiophile grade" MCH equipment (players, pre-amps, amps, integrated amps, speakers).


Which brings me to this thread, I think anyone thinking that MC/5.1 SACD or DVD-A/Dualdisc is the way forward for high resolution stereo is plain wrong, also suggesting to people thinking of investing in SACD 5.1 kit when they could be getting much better replay from stereo CD or Vinyl is the way to advise. As I mentioned before if you have 10X the ratio of CDs to 5.1 music that highlights where to spend your monies. Stereo will always be here in music terms, surely SACD & DVD-A are proof of that.

Well, my ratio is now about 3 to 1 CD to 5.1/hi-res (I have some stereo only hi-res titles, though not that many) and as time goes by, the ratio will likely shrink further. As an early adopter of CD (got my first player in 1985) I also don't have a TT at the moment (though I'll add one when funds allow--I have a miniscule vinyl collection (about 30 LPs) but my parents inherited a mountain of 78rpms (notoriously fragile) that I'd like to archive). And once I get a TT, I'll explore the vinyl world again. But well recorded hi-res, even in stereo ;), is hard to beat. In fact, vinyl, CD, hi-res, what matters most in sound quality is the recording, not the format. Though, with all else being equal, my money is on hi-res (two channel or otherwise).


No it need not cost a lot, but when you run a CD/Vinyl format thru it – well you know the rest.
The same arguments were around in the early days of CD. "Don't bother with that newfangled thing, it'll never replace vinyl" or "why spend money on a CD player--there are no titles and you could upgrade your TT cartridge instead". And even further back, the mono vs stereo debate was pretty hardcore. That's my main beef. People are writing off hi-res too soon (I think it will always be around in some form) and writing off MCH as "gimmicky" the same way stereo was once derided. No one seems to want to address that issue. Oh well. In any case, to make an informed opinion about hi-res and MCH music, one needs to at least dip a toe in the waters. Hence my observation that it needn't cost a lot to see if it's any good.




Ovation as much as I admire your dogged determinmation to see MC music take off, its simply not the case, there are a few reasons for this but the main one to me is that audiophiles who are into music and are willing to spend large amounts of loo-la on music reproduction systems have been noticable more for their disdain of MC music than their support.

I'm hoping Kal Rubinson at Stereophile will help change some minds on this. Hope you don't mind. :D

The other final point is why has SACD/DVD-A not taken off then ? Well your standard 5.1 user is a AV movie fan, not music. The cost – have you seen the cost of Dualdiscs ? £15 +PP in most cases, its going to die the same lingering death as the other MC music formats.

Why did SACD fail to take off? I think it's because Sony dropped the ball by being too greedy. Initial releases were non-hybrid in a futile attempt to get everyone to by an SACD player all at once. Single inventory hybrid releases would have gone a long way to generate market penetration. Bad marketing decision. It's killed more than one good product (Beta was way better than VHS, but Sony was stupid about that too). Moreover, the lack of a simple digital connection to MCH rigs out of some asinine paranoia about copy protection didn't help (recent machines with FIREWIRE connections notwithstanding, but far too little too late for mass appeal).

Why did DVD-A fail to take off? Same copy protection/connection paranoia. Lack of portability (which SACD had in its favour and stupidly failed to exploit).

What about DualDisc? Well, it tries to address the DVD-A portability issue, but not overly well (DVD-A+CD releases would be a lot better, and cheaper than a new format, but the level of stupidity in marketing departments never ceases to amaze me). It is, on some titles, doing something, at least in N. America, that might make it catch on more than the other two. A few high profile discs have been released EXCLUSIVELY in this format (Springsteen's latest, among them). Such an approach by SACD would have been the ideal way to ensure its mainstream appeal. I guess DualDisc makers have learned at least ONE lesson. Oh, and prices for DualDisc on this side of the pond are negligibly higher than CDs. Don't know about UK or Europe.

Multi-channel music (high res) and the kit its played on, is not wanted by a huge proportion of music fans, they would use high res stereo as that’s what their current huge collections are made up of (CD/Vinyl) but again the industry has spectacularly failed in this failed to see what the market wants and will buy into.

I think we agree on marketing cock-ups. The beauty of SACD, in theory at least, is that everyone gets what they want. CD layer, STEREO hi-res AND MCH hi-res. Too bad they screwed the pooch on that one.

Ovation yet another dodgy piece of advice to anyone considering getting vinyl : new releases on vinyl are 100 times more evident than SACD/DVDA/Ddisc as are the sales (new Vinyl trounced all the high res formats last year), then theres the second hand market, Oxfam et al. As for cost of equipment £150 on Projekt TT will see of many £300/400 CDPs, £500 on a RPM6, £650 Clearaudio Emotion not much will get near to these under £1000 in CDP terms, As for a Universal player below £1000 doing SACD/DVDA again not in the races. And I have not even begun to say what you can get 2nd hand wise below £1000 in TT terms.

I was mainly referring to comparative start up costs if you want to try either hi-res or vinyl (have to include the cost of a phono pre-amp as it is difficult to find entry level affordable gear that includes one). On this side of the pond (again) it's less costly to get started in hi-res than in vinyl. Moreover, I disagree that you need to spend over £1000 to get quality universal playback--at least not over here.

Finally If you think Im a purist (I rate CD & Vinyl equally) then your barking up the wrong tree bro, I just have it in for MC high res stereo, give me stereo hi-res yes, but only MC and it’s a bit a joke for me and many other music/hifi orientated fans.

I think you're a "purist" regarding MCH vs Stereo. FWIW, hi-res releases with ONLY a MCH mix are rare, and usually were among the early DVD-A releases (ALL SACDs, by spec, MUST have a hi-res TWO CHANNEL mix--MCH and HYBRID are optional). As for MCH being a "joke", I can only again point to the mono vs stereo debates of half a century ago. The exact same criticisms were made then about "gimmicky" sonic shenanigans. And there were examples of that, just as there are examples of it in MCH mixes today. Stereo matured, MCH will too. Moreover, I have several friends who are serious music listeners and they've each come away impressed with at least some of the MCH mixes I've played for them. Even the most hardcore audiophiles among them appreciated the "ambient mixes" of classical recordings, if not all the mixes (no one's perfect, after all :D ).

In the end, it always comes down to "enjoying the tunes". Two-channel does it for you and MCH doesn't? Great. But don't argue that MCH or even two channel hi-res is necessarily a waste. I always recommend that people give hi-res and MCH a serious listen (and for my friends, I invite them to my place) and then decide.
 
Drd said:
I started with DSOTM.It's brilliant.Up was just as good.Tubular Bells was stunning.Now Brothers in arms has arrived.Absolutely stupendous! OK it may not suit the purists,but who is to say what a rock album should really sound like?To me these 4 albums alone are worth every penny I recently spent,never mind the pleasure the plasma is giving too.Bring on WYWH.

It's not so much the "Hi Res" that's impressive, it's the multichannel part. I find that the sound quality from listening to mp3s on my stereo from my iRiver (over digital connection) is pretty much just as good as the original CD. Likewise, my DTS music stuff sounds just as great as my SACD multichannel audio.

Definitely, a good multichannel mix is the way to go. Not all music suits it but when the music does, and it's done well, the effect is fantastic. I can't wait until they perfect live multichannel recording. Currently a lot of the MC stuff is just remixed

Gav
 
i think the point at the start of the thread was, if you were buying a new dvd player anyway, would it be worth buying one that could play SACD? if someone is buying a dvd player, there is some chance they are hoping to connect it to a 5.1 set-up. so why not get a machine that will play hi-res music, since they aren't really any more expensive? i think most people on the forums would advise others to buy a multi region rather than region 2 only player, just in case. so why not take the same attitude to hi-res music?
 
manny said:
i think the point at the start of the thread was, if you were buying a new dvd player anyway, would it be worth buying one that could play SACD? if someone is buying a dvd player, there is some chance they are hoping to connect it to a 5.1 set-up. so why not get a machine that will play hi-res music, since they aren't really any more expensive? i think most people on the forums would advise others to buy a multi region rather than region 2 only player, just in case. so why not take the same attitude to hi-res music?

That's exactly what I've done, when my Sammy 950 turns up! I've already bought Brothers in Arms, DSOTM and Deadwing SACD and DVD-A discs.
 
I have recently experienced SACD/DVD-A sound through a recently purchased DENON 2910. Elton John(Peachtree Road)and DSOTM on SACD and Fleetwood Mac (Rumours) on DVD-A.
my only discs to date. I found the sound to be excellent on both the SACD's in multichannel although the Elton John was preferred as it had a front speaker balance and just ambience from the rears. DSOTM is more effect biased which works ok with this record. The DVD-A of Rumours i did not like in multichannel. It had a thin confused sound with no focus. In stereo however it was brilliant,tight, detailed and with the best bass definition i've heard on my system.
as you may have noticed I probably prefer my music in stereo. However my speaker set up is made up of a mixture with the fronts being better than the rears so it's probably not an ideal setup although sound levels are equalised ok.
In summary I must say it's a bit like the curates egg, good in parts. This may of course be due to my system, i.e speakers not being ideal. comments would be welcome.
 
ray collison said:
I have recently experienced SACD/DVD-A sound through a recently purchased DENON 2910. Elton John(Peachtree Road)and DSOTM on SACD and Fleetwood Mac (Rumours) on DVD-A.
my only discs to date. I found the sound to be excellent on both the SACD's in multichannel although the Elton John was preferred as it had a front speaker balance and just ambience from the rears. DSOTM is more effect biased which works ok with this record. The DVD-A of Rumours i did not like in multichannel. It had a thin confused sound with no focus. In stereo however it was brilliant,tight, detailed and with the best bass definition i've heard on my system.
as you may have noticed I probably prefer my music in stereo. However my speaker set up is made up of a mixture with the fronts being better than the rears so it's probably not an ideal setup although sound levels are equalised ok.
In summary I must say it's a bit like the curates egg, good in parts. This may of course be due to my system, i.e speakers not being ideal. comments would be welcome.

Well, I think you know where I stand on this issue (if you've read any of the above posts). At the risk of giving out bad advice :nono: ;) , I will say the following.

Regardless of preference for two channel vs MCH and the level of equipment one has on hand, I believe the case against multichannel is the same kind of case as was once made against stereo back when mono was king. I've raised this several times here and elsewhere and no one seems to have a comment one way or another, which I find odd. Of course, as an historian, my fascination for things considered out of date (like mono vs stereo) is probably not shared by the majority of gadget-geeks (which I also am).

In the early days of stereo, the kinds of complaints I hear/read regularly today about MCH mixes were almost the same. People complained about "gimmicky" mixes that "ping-ponged" across (rather than around, as today's MCH mixes) the soundstage for no good reason. Also, the expanded sense of spaciousness (which I LOVE about well done MCH mixes today) was often criticized as presenting a sonic image out of proproportion to the imagined venue. There just seemed to be a lot of "silliness" that was superfluous and seemed only designed to draw unwarranted attention to itself. And it was true. There were mixes like that in the early days of stereo, just as there are today in the early days of MCH mixes. Stereo grew up, so to speak, and I'm confident MCH will as well. In fact, I'd say the majority of the mixes are already mature in that sense.

An additional barrier to acceptance of MCH mixes, again IMO, is it represents a "paradigm shift" in the way we receive the musical experience. 99% of music listeners are not music makers. They've never been in a recording studio during a jam session or onstage with a band or in a choir or orchestra or etc. As such, they've always received music (when purposefully listening, at any rate) from in front. In that sense, the change from mono to stereo represented a change of degree, not kind. Stereo expanded the soundstage, gave it depth as well breadth, but it remained up front. I can understand the conditioning that makes most people more comfortable with the idea of music coming from in front of them--particularly a live recording, as it represents their seating position vis a vis the performers. People who attend concerts, whether rock or classical, will say, "I wasn't surrounded by the music, the players were up front".

To that I say: yes and no. It's true that at a live performance, your main source of sound is from the front. But sound reflects all around the room/venue and you are, in effect, "surrounded" by the music. It's just that not all of it is directly radiating at you. The "ambient hall" mixes found on most classical and many live concert recordings are trying to recreate this sense of space--and many do it quite well. A well set up set of stereo speakers and gear can give some impression of this space, but the room in which you listen to your gear is not the same as the recording venue and I think, as good as stereo can be, properly done ambient MCH mixes capture that spaciousness even better. And those mixes are far from "gimmicky".

Let's look at the "gimmicky" mixes, or, as I like to call them, "in the band" mixes. I've been in recording studios, choirs and onstage, so I don't find the "in the band" perspective unusual. But even if I didn't have those experiences, I would still like to listen to "in the band" mixes. It's one thing to argue that live performances are "in front" of the audience, and so should be mixed that way to reflect reality. In the studio, however, there is no "front". Most often, the individual tracks are played separately and mixed later. Traditionally, mixes have been directed to the "front", as that was the kind of playback gear available. But now, with the ability to play back DISCRETE MCH mixes, the mixers/artists are no longer bound by that constraint. Does it always make a good mix? No. But the same can be said of stereo. I think it's a question of acclimatization. Perhaps, as others suggest, it will never take off. It's possible, as the masses are generally far less adventurous than they'd like to believe. If true, I'll be sad, as I find the possibilities available to MCH mixers still largely untapped. But I don't think "in the band" mixes deserve the scorn heaped upon them by many "traditionalists", for lack of a better term.

Anyway, it's late, so I'm signing off for now. I know I won't likely convert anyone (MCH vs stereo seems a bit too much like Republicans vs Democrats, these days) but I think MCH deserves more careful consideration than it's getting and this is my little plea for some of that consideration.

In the end, though, as I often say and write--no matter what the format or the number of channels--it's about enjoying the tunes. :smashin:
 
Haven't seen it mentioned here so I thought I would make a recommendation for the stunningly awesome Roxy Music Avalon SACD (hybrid m/c) The only downside is the sleeve print is from the HDCD remix (mentions HDCD but the redbook layer isn't).

Brayn Ferry seems to know what he's doing as regards m/c too; the Frantic SACD is very nice, and though I havent heard it myself but the Boys and Girls SACD m/c mix is reputed to rival Avalon.

Someone mentioned Porcupine Tree in absentia earlier - the music and m/c mix is awesome but i thought the bass was a touch thin

Of course Queen's A Night At The Opera is a must-buy - if not for Bohemian Rhapsody in it's intended state, then for The Prophet's Song. The Game has better SQ, though - probably coz its a later recording, but both m/c mixes are stunning.

Also try these:
The Flaming Lips Yoshimi Battles The Pink Robots (DVD-A) the m/c mix is my demo disc ;) SQ wise it seems a bit rough at the edges.
Blue Man Group Audio (DVD-A) - a workout for the sub, and punishment for satellites
Yes Fragile (DVD-A)
Joe Satriani Strange Beautiful Music (SACD single layer m/c)
David Bowie Ziggy Stardust


so, to the original question: IMHO if you already have a 5.1 system it's a no-brainer to get a universal player - at least an entry-level one - to have SACD/DVD-A capability
 
FeisalK said:
Haven't seen it mentioned here so I thought I would make a recommendation for the stunningly awesome Roxy Music Avalon SACD (hybrid m/c) The only downside is the sleeve print is from the HDCD remix (mentions HDCD but the redbook layer isn't).

Brayn Ferry seems to know what he's doing as regards m/c too; the Frantic SACD is very nice, and though I havent heard it myself but the Boys and Girls SACD m/c mix is reputed to rival Avalon.

The Avalon SACD is simply amazing. If you own a SACD player buy a copy.

By the way have any of you read the Rhett Davies & Bob Clearmountain article "Recording & Remixing Roxy Music's Avalon" for SACD that appeared in Sound on Sound. See:

http://www.soundonsound.com/sos/aug03/articles/roxymusic.htm

Oh yes,the Boys and Girls SACD is excellent as well. I don't own the Frantic SACD so I can't comment.

Don't forget Dire Straits "Brothers in Arms" SACD. Really worth buying. :thumbsup:

I almost forgot to answer the Question. Is SACD worth buying? YES!
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom