Thanks, Steve. I figured that out by three things you would never do. But I won’t say what those three things are, because I don’t want the scammer to fix the mistakes. Are you able to delete the scammer’s lure?
I am always amazed how important the quality of the recording is. Sometimes i hear some recordings over my system and i can't barely believe that my system could sound that good! Makes me wonder what really high end is.
To me, as the owner of a small recording studio, the difference between audiophile speakers and studio monitors is that audiophile speakers blend the various components of a piece of music together in a pleasing way, while studio monitors separate those components for artistic and technical analysis, both individually and as part of the instrumental and (and often vocal) whole. For my main audiophile listening, I have a marvelous pair of Bowers and Wilkins 805D3s. Their blend of sounds is ideal for almost any type of music. (I bought them following your review some years ago, Steve). My main studio monitors are ATC SCM25A powered monitors. They are three-way, tri-amped monitors, with a separate amp for each speaker. They do a jaw-dropping job of separating the components of a piece of music. They can sound pleasing, but their only job is to tell the truth. For instance, when listening to a vocal we've tracked, I can easily tell if the singer's tongue was inflexible as she or he sang (thus creating a less open tone and timbre). I've had guitar players decide to switch to a slightly firmer or looser pick. Once something's recorded, we listen on the ATCs both to each individual track and the whole piece together, to make sure we've captured something we're satisfied with. But do I then mix on them? Only at the very end. Most of my mixing is done on my Avantone MixCubes, which intentionally have not much sonic range. (Some people use old Yamaha NS-10 speakers for the same purpose). I also make sure to see how the mix sounds in mono through the MixCubes. Why? As you point out, most people hear music in the background, from what to them is essentially a mono source, for example a stereo in another room in the house. So it's important to make sure the mix sounds good in mono. The final checks on every mix are just that - 1) on an okay stereo system just off my control room, listening from the control room; 2) on a fairly decent Bluetooth speaker, via Bluetooth, from the same room, and 3) on at least one car stereo, while driving. If the mix passes those final 3 tests, it'll sound good anywhere. When it's done the client gets to listen to it on the ATCs, where they really get to hear all the components, and then over my Bowers and Wilkins, where they hear more as a whole. Then I send them to their own car to listen, by themselves, for final approval. If they come back through the door with a big smile, we're done.
Many many thanks for this insight rarely put together in such a clear way. I was considering buying the ATC SCM 20 ASL for home listening to replace my Kef R3 bookshelfs...
That’s true. Lots of people still track and mix on NS-10’s. And as much as everyone says they hate them, there is a reason those Yama’s are out there. In the studio, a guy is trying to track things accurately. Me personally am not trying to get the euphonic sound, I’m going for accuracy.
Many thousands of music lovers use 'studio monitor' type speakers for their hi-fi, including me. Brands like ATC, Spendor, Rogers, B&W, PMC and so on. They use this type of speaker because they want the least colouration introduced to their listening experience.
I could have guessed your personal listening system would consist of a B&W product. They are used by many a studio as monitors. Boston Symphony Orchestra comes to mind. (O: I like the 'truth' from my Martin Logans from the current Masterpiece series.
You may get a kick out of this! I'm 72 years old and the first time I ever heard stereo was from the Perry Como Show. What he did was introduce a new sound called stereo, this is back in the early to mid fifties and I remember this clearly. He had folks tune in a perticular station on the radio in your area and then put it a few feet away from the television set. Perry then performed live on his show, amost all the shows back then were live, and you heard stereo for the first time. One channel was from the TV and the other channel was from the radio. I was very young at the time! I remember being so amazed by it! It was a first, Perry Como was the first one to ever do this or the first artist to ever been heard in stereo! He also pioneered some other stuff in the recording and record industry also.
The 99%'s don't know what they are missing! I'm one of those Audiophiles that buys a lot of Classical SACDS and I appreciate the format as many of these recordings sound great with beautiful sound. I agree that many regular CDs that are not SACDs sound great due to an excellent recording technique and quality of the musicians. I'm an older guy who is tired of listening to the same old Rock n Roll bands of my youth listening to 2, 3 4 minute ditties of simple songs with little or no musical development or musicians who play great but can't sing. Lastly, always looking forward to your cool viewer systems of the day showcasing the many Audiophiles and Music Lovers who take pride and pleasure in their rigs.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who is not interested in re-living my days in high school or listening to what was then great music, and still moves me on occasion; but it’s not 1969 forever. At a certain point you realize you can’t go back however much you might want to. The future is now. Good music is contemporary and it partakes of the eternal; in a word, it is art. I’m looking for artists that can help me get a handle on the times in which I live, because, at my age, I feel my grip slipping. I can’t hold onto the past, I have to let go and find happiness where I am now. Music helps me do that.
Thank you Steve-so much great stuff here. I've been a recording engineer for 40 years and an avid record listener and collector for 25 more and his reflections on the way the industry has evolved from a sound quality point of view are priceless and quite accurate. I just wanted to elaborate on a couple of points-I too thought surround music would become a viable of component of the industry but I failed to see that more and more people would be listening through earphones as their primary place for serious listening which made surround a moot issue. It also affected how we compress recordings that we mix and master. The availabilty of look ahead digital limiter plug ins has allowed us to compress and limit as much as we want without fear of creating distortion and, especially through earphones on phones with weak headphone amps, this was the only way to create an impactful experiance for the casual listener. Plus I've found that many clients, even ones that considered themselves sound concious always preferred the louder mix when I gave them the choice. To conclude, instead of moving towards a high quality sonic experience through surround and high resolution formats, this century had seen us move firmly in the opposite direction through the primacy of mp3 and other compression schemes played through earbuds and small speakers that prioritized convenience over quality as Steve so correctly points out. The audiophile world is a genuine but very small segment of the market and so many companies will use the term for marketing only that the average consumer has no reall awareness the differences these sorts of recordings offer.
Such a good comment. Exploited for marketing - yes. I mean what else the point of Apple promoting “Hi-Rez” when both their gear and their software can’t even render/play it. …
Yup. Every tech reviewer tells us the latest version of whatever crap apple is pedaling sounds amazing, true lifelike sound. Tech reviewers reach tens of millions of viewers. Their message regarding what sounds good is really influencing the youth of today.
@@westernartifact580 Apple-Crapple! Poor Wi-Fi performance in every internet service call I do daily. People think because they spend more on the equipment that it will be better.... Apple "music"? No thanks! 🎶🙄🎶
I decided pretty early in my audio system journey that 16 bit 44.1 was good enough for me. How fortunate that was for me. Old CDs are readily available. Even the audiophile recordings I want to buy are cheaper in that format. It all ends up on a network hard drive and streamed through a media server that is tricked out to play just that format as well as possible. I am glad the other formats did not obsolete my system. Allows me to be happy with what I have got. And no, I did not settle for mediocrity. 44.1 played on a system with a clock optimized for that format can be very natural.
You have NO IDEA what your missing I assure you. Some of the SACD's coming out today for music from the 70's/80's will BLOW YOUR MIND over the CD copy you have...even if its the original pressing before the whole "re-mastering" over-compressed nonsense became the norm. Its night and day.
@@billiondollarbaby3276 Sounds like you are finding stuff that is good with the music you like. That's great. I have a pretty good idea of the difference format makes. I compared the identical tracks of well recorded stuff from LessLoss, MA Recordings and Chetsky and played the same track at 192 or downgraded to 44.1. The 192 is better given similar clock. Not night and day, but better. The 192 with normal clock vs 44.1 with extremely good clock... I prefer the 44.1. I wonder if a lot of what you're getting with these new releases is a better mastering along with the hires.
@@user-od9iz9cv1w Im comparing Rock titles most of which were poorly recorded in the 1st place (Unlike Classical music). Its not so much about remastering as it is about REMIXING from the original master tapes.
@@billiondollarbaby3276 Yes, my favorite versions of Rolling Stones 1969s albums are the SACD remasters from a number of years ago (as well as the vinyl cut from the DSD masters), and Giles Martin's remixes (not remasters, but actual remixes!) of Beatles albums have become my favorite versions of those albums (unless for a different take I want to listen to the original mono mixes, which as is the case with the whilte album and Srgnt Pepper, very different mixes than the stereo versions. Still, Giles Martin remixes have become my faves).
While I stream much of what I listen to, I do still buy CDs. I love the new SACDs put out by Chandos, primarily, of classical titles and performances. The depth of sound field, the sound stage width and instrument location are so good sounding to me.
I bought Respighi's Church Windows/Birds on Chandos some years ago and man does that cd have amazing sound. I believe Tate conducted it and the gong will destroy/clip any amp and/or speaker that can't handle it. GREAT fun to take into an audio store and watch the salesman reach for the remote.
I started buying SACDs in 2000 and I have never stopped buying them. The supply from the likes of Universal Music Japan, ARS Produktion and BIS (to name a few) keep filling my shelves. I admit I have more SACDs than I can realistically have time to listen to, and they keep coming out! ESOTERIC is realeasing yet more DG titles this month! Streaming? What's that? I have never done any streaming and I don't intend to at any time!
Always been curious about SACD but never had a chance to do A/B comparison of them back when it would have been a thing for me. Now it's mostly become various Hi-Res digital files, 24/192 mostly. Streaming doesn't make sense to me, I'll just rather buy the album, download it and play it back on my non-connected DAP.
@@tango_gru I have an Esoteric K 07, It is a truly wonderful machine. I once had the chance to listen to a K 03, It was also a sublime experience. Luxman has an outstanding SACD player in the D10. The Marantz SA 10 is also worth considering. Still, you must listen to any player for yourself to make an informed decision.
I started buying CDs again about a year ago after realizing I was running out of room to properly care for and store my growing LP collection in an apartment. Already knowing a good deal about labels like MoFi and Analogue Productions I took a chance on SACDs despite their price and never having heard anything about them before. I was a kid in the early aughts so I have absolutely no recollection of SACDs ever existing alongside CDs in a retail environment and I usually have to describe to people under 30 what the hell it is I'm buying exactly, but overall I have to say I'm impressed. My system is as modest as you can possibly have (a Marantz UD5007 through a starter Yahama receiver), but for my present space and needs it gives me a solid sound that's a lot better than solid through good headphones. A big motivation for me to own physical media is having unlimited access to my favorite music and movies in the best possible quality, and it's hard to argue with an (allegedly) pure copy of the master tape. It's more likely to appeal to me than most people my age because I'm the guy who likes Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Tom Waits, The Doors etc, but releases like Run DMC, Pixies and Weezer have also really shown their merit. If labels continue to expand their catalogs beyond 1979 (or secure a few more BIG discographies) the format has a chance to stick around. It will probably hit it's end timeline-wise when music gets to the pro-tools era, but as you said, SACD has really only accounted for maybe 1% of the analog era as it stands.
I remember the Stereo vs Quadraphonic Debate and the Quadraphonic proponents predicted the death of 2 Channel Stereo. This was decades before “Surround Sound” and major manufacturers of the time were promoting their new lines of Quadraphonic Equipment and the big record companies began releasing quadraphonic versions of Albums by the biggest artists of the day along with the Stereo Album versions. Despite all the hype, technology, yada, yada, yada 2 Channel Stereophonic survived then and it’s still in vogue today albeit in digital formats and that has brought us to this point in time and the current debates. It’s part of the history of audiophilia in the consumer electronics marketplace. Interesting Presentation Steve 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
When Pioneer came out with the DV-563A, an affordable universal player for SACD and DVD-Audio, I bought one as soon as I could. Surround mixes of some of my favorite albums were what attracted me to the formats. Sadly, the labels seemed to stop releasing titles at about the same time. But I love my surround copies of Kind of Blue, Dark Side of the Moon, Rumors, Tapestry, Brothers in Arms, Gaucho, Pet Sounds, Hotel California, Tommy, The Nightfly, Kamakiriad, and a stereo only SACD of Excitable Boy. They're now played on an Oppo BDP-105. Quality-wise, I'm eternally grateful to CDs for bringing analog tapes out of the vaults. For me, 'hi-rez' doesn't add anything unless it's one of the very few albums actually recorded at better than CD resolution - otherwise, you're just buying the identical pair of shoes in a bigger, more expensive box.
@@michaelkaiser5994 Kiko is a wonderful album. Sorry I missed the SACD version. I love the Kiko Live blu ray, with stereo and surround options. It looks like the DV-47A was one of the very first universal players, coming out in mid 2002, at about $1,200. The DV-563A appeared in late 2003, and cost $250, which is why I waited for it. I still have it, but the Oppo took over as my primary. I'm basing my dates on reviews
I have two of those Pioneer DV 563a's, one for a vintage Pioneer 780 receiver and the other for a Reissong A-10 amp and they sound great thru this player.
But did the Stones sound better on SACD or did you just hear more noise in their crappy recordings? My Let it Bleed record sounds like Mick phoned the vocals in.
I love the wide range of reviews you do, Steve, from the bargain priced gear to the expensive. I have no interest purchasing 99.9 percent of the stuff you discuss, but I believe it makes me a more knowledgeable audiophile just knowing about the gear. And your comments about vinyl got me back into analog sound after thirty years of being digital - thanks for this! Keep up the great stuff!
Hi Steve. Just to throw a spanner in the works re SACD. I recently did an extensive listening test, on one of your favourites, the Luxman D10X. I ran through a number of SACD, playing the CD and SACD layer. The thing is that, in all but one (possible) instance, the CD layer sounded obviously better than the SACD counterpart. So, do not despair if you have no high res. CDs still have a lot to offer. :0) Additionally in my experience, Streaming, even at high res (and even on very expensive units) sounds flat and one dimensional, compared to a decent CD player (of a few thousands upwards).
Im so glad to watch this video. Ive been an audiophile since the 80’s as a teenager. I woke up one day and they are talking SACD, i thought what the h&ll just happened… ive got cds and whats this. The best streamed music cannot make a piano sound like a piano despite my ribbons. CDs are still the best.
I wonder how much higher the production cost of a SACD versus a CD is. Then when an average CD costs about 15 bucks nowadays, and a SACD three times that - what's going on then? I bet the Rolling Stones can tell us...
This is funny. Surround sure as hell isn't dead to me. I just got the White Allbum, Abbey Road, Electric Ladyland, and Appetite for Destruction to name a few! The majority of my favorite recordings are SACDs because the hi res and surround elements can really take my favorite albums to a new level. Many SACDs were classic rock and while I was simply burned out on listening to Aerosmith's Toys in the Attic in stereo for the god knows how many'th time over the years getting it on SACD was almost like hearing it again for the first time it opened up the soundscape and improved it so much. SACD does this for alot of my favorite classic rock, as do BR, and DVDA. Beatles, Doors, Elton John, Pink Floyd never sounded better on any other media IMO and I play it all, but of course my system is tailored for 5.1 surround. If you're into classic rock there is a hell of alot more available than just that Talking Heads box set which I'd never heard of so thanks for mentioning!
I came late to sacd, but I love it. I bought a Marantz SA KI about 3 years ago. Since then I buy sacd if available and have been known to spend way too much for oop titles. I recognize that they could have rolled it out better. And yes the lack of major label support is baffling.
In the US, after the initial marketing failure, SACD titles are licensed from the major labels to reissue labels (such as Mobile Fidelity, Intervention Records, Analogue Productions, etc.) for release on SACD. Last week saw the SACD releases of Elvis' "Blue Hawaii" (licensed from Sony Music) and Mark Knopfler's soundtrack to the movie "Local Hero" (licensed from Warner Bros. Records); both SACDs were reissued by Mobile Fidelity. June 2022 will see the SACD release of Quincy Jones' "The Dude" on Intervention Records (licensed from A&M Records/Universal Music). In Japan, the world's second biggest music market and #1 music market for physical mediums, SACDs are typically released directly from the record companies.
Steve, I have always found that Deutsche Grammophon produce very high quality recordings issued on high quality pressings. They know that their target market is a more informed and discerning one. They are quite transparent with respect to their approach to recording and distribution media. Today their releases often include hi-res and Atmos versions via disc and downloads. Their marketing usually has links to streaming services such as Apple Music which I use. A a result, within minutes of reading of a new release I can be listening to it on the system which I recently shared with you in my submission to the VSOTD. I really appreciate and enjoy your videos and podcasts.
Thanks Steve! Another great installment. Really appreciate the background and information on SACD and four channel playback. It’s very interesting to realize how low on the list of priorities audio quality really is to most labels. I do disagree with you a bit on the recording studio comments. My experience has been that engineers and producers strive to get the most beautiful sound they can. They will always give you a test mix and send you home to listen on every system you can get your hands on in order to test the broadest range of listening experiences. Anyway, love the channel. Keep up the great work!
I can verify your points at about 7:40 regarding music being mixed with a specific ‘ambience’ in mind. I have several 45 RPM records in my collection with the same track on both sides, with one side being labeled ‘Radio Version.’ I couldn’t hear (or my system didn’t reveal) much of a difference, but the recording/mastering engineers thought there was enough of one to label it as such. And I agree with your points at and about 8:20 (that most of us listen to music in the background, or while involved in other activities), and that is certainly true of streaming music. One of the things I like about streaming is that it requires little active management; while phonographs and CDs require that you be at or near the machine to tend to loading fresh media. And albums or CDs are tracks intentionally arranged together, often with an ‘introduction’ a climax,’ and a conclusion. How often do you listen to a CD with your eyes closed and you can tell from the way a track starts up, it’s pace, tone, clues you in, this is the last song? Because you’re there, in the room, it’s more efficient just to sit down and really listen to the music. Do you go downstairs to put on an album before you do the dishes? I don’t. I go downstairs and stay there; dishes can wait until the morning. I also agree with your point at 20:00 (that everyone needs to please themselves) although many of us (even after all these years) are still searching, or at least open to ‘all’ or ‘new’ music. Although, I also think that a large part of the audiophile journey is to define ‘your’ sound, both by the selection of tracks in your collection, and by the gear on the shelf. Just my 2 cents.
Wow Steve everything you said about the old Days of Analog is so true, as with your statement of Recording Engineers not really putting their heart into it is quite evident. I'm 62 years Old and I build Speakers Hi-end Bookshelf and any Engineer either doing the Recording of Music or Designing a loudspeaker must have 110% of his Heart into what he is doing that being intellect and that artist empirical awareness of the Gift of hearing good Music and then passing it on to others via the Recording or the Lould Speaker. I would love to send you a pair in the next 6 months and would be horned as a fellow Audiophile. Best regards John
As an owner of Court of the Crimson King and Starless… you are absolutely correct, Steven Wilson is a gifted engineer who absolutely gets how surround should work and has the ability to work in those extra dimensions. That being said, a good friend got the Talking Heads brick and WHOA!!! Jerry Harrison REALLY gets it, at least as it pertains to the Heads catalog. Though honestly he’s been a gifted producer for some time (notably the early-mid 90’s album Live-Throwing Copper, brilliant!). I still believe in music for/in surround sound and wish some newer music was worthy of the effort to be recorded and/or mixed in surround. I think Jack White, The Black Keys, and particularly Muse could sound otherworldly. I feel perhaps the industry didn’t push for it because as it became apparent the direction in which music distribution was headed, they may have had concerns about the viability of being able to download or stream an uncompressed or hi-res x.1 surround file. Quad was more than interesting when well implemented, but that seems to be the deal. At that point it’s no longer enough to be well played, recorded, produced, and mastered…it must then be exceptionally well engineered. Which of course adds another hand to pay…
Steve (or anyone w/info) will you please mention your audio diffusers you have on the wall behind you as well as where /how to buy them? What a great look w/functionality snuck right in. If they are indeed, diffusers as they appear to be. Thank you in advance.
Yes, mastering is a big problem and has been for some time. Heck, back in the day, the execs used to listen to their mixes broadcast to telephone or AM radio because they wanted them to sound good on low-fidelity systems. However, when I'm listening to Qobuz I can tell if the stream is 24 bits, regardless of mastering quality. 48 kHz vs. 96 vs. 192 doesn't matter as much as the bit count, at least to my ears.
Success through lower expectations! I agree with your observation, and it’s sad how people are generally satisfied with mediocrity. I just recently opened up and replaced the three belts on my 400-disc Sony DVP-CX777ES. This unit is connected directly to a pair of Edifier S3000 Pro Audiophile powered bookshelf speakers (my listening space is very limited, so this is my solution). I am in love with high-res music again!
The most amazing thing is that today, a lot of folks have all the equipment needed to experience good surround music in their own homes. Any DVD player, played through a home home theater system will give a very good experience with a good DVD audio disc. Not only that, but Sony DVD players almost all play SACD as well. All most folks need to do to enjoy surround music is buy the discs.
Thanks for the stories, Steve. There are many product reviews out there, but few people have your wealth of experience to share. The reviews might be the bread-and-butter content, but please keep telling stories, doing interviews, etc. The non-review content is great for those of us who aren't actively shopping for a new component. That has to be most viewers, right?
Hi Steve, thanks! I would be very interested to hear what you have to say specifically about Blu-ray and Blu-ray Audio. I ask because I'm surprised that some big and important audio releases (e.g. The Beatles "Let it be" Limited 50th Anniversary Super Deluxe Edition) include a Blu-ray audio-disc (and NOT SACD!): that's not really up to date anymore, isn't it - especially since companies like Marantz or others don't even produce Blu-ray audio-players anymore. For example, I bought a good SACD player years ago, but never got into the Blu-ray audio business. How do you deal with that? (I'm also resisting buying a Blu-ray player for movies at all - you stream everything these days. I may be crazy, but I just don't get it.) Thanks a lot!
Thank you Steve Guttenberg, you are a to go person for us Audioheads.the new term.those who want but can't afford in the latest audio mega universe. I appreciate your up to date information on all there is in the audio industry. Keep it going we love you.A well deserved topic for today and beyond. What did happen to the wars in this format.Thank you clearing the air on the hesitation of this format.Yes !!!!! And we love the systems of the day.. Keep it coming.!!!!!
Good piece. I have 45 + SACD classical from companies I have a Yamaha CD/SDVideo player that handles almost anything playing them - or one of the other 1,000 CDs. I can toggle ACD/PMC when I use the remote. SACD sounds different - I think beter.
I had several reference systems with SACD/DVDAudio and the occasional HDCD….guess which format sounded consistently and demonstrably superior? HDCD! That was the way to go…cheaper and easily implemented.
Watch out for The STones sacds. They have to be gold and in a digipak. They actually put out the silver ones in jewel cases and advertised them as the sacd when they were just the regular cd, rather than change the packaging.
Somewhat ironically, the DSD masters for The Stones SACDs have been used to make new vinyl LP versions again. I’ve got a Stones LP with ‘DSD remastering’ on the packaging.
for surround, i found that DynaQuad, devised by David Hafler, extracts the ambience from the out of phase material in the difference between left and right channels. ALL formats respond well to it, radio, tv, dvd, LP, CD, SACD, or whatever stereo source you put through it. studio stereo recordings can be quite subtle but LIVE recordings sound LIVE and music like that of Isao Tomita. SQ and QS recordings sound pretty good as well. things only occur in the rear when they belong there. an excellent example of a live recording that is spectacular in DynaQuad is On the Night by Dire Straits. from the time that the pot opens, the recording is electrifying. you probably know this but Dolby Pro Logic is based on the Hafler circuit with logic steering enhancement. the way i adjust the DynaQuad unit is to play a regular studio stereo recording so that the rear channels are barely detectable, then Tomita and LIVE recordings really sound natural. the big test is when you return to stereo and the rear channels go away and the soundfield collapses to the front; it's dramatic. i agree that CBS/SONY really dropped the ball with SACD and also those that marketed DVDA. with SACD they could have marketed them two ways in a retail store. a special rack where only the SACD product, both single layer and hybrid would exist. AND in the regular stereo mix of CDs, the hybrids could have been populated without fear of selling a disc that couldn't be played in a conventional cd player. i did my best to support sacd because i wanted it to survive but the lack of CBS/SONY's support squelched that. it's possible that they were afraid of such a perfect sounding recording that piracy wouldn't have required sophisticated equipment to bypass the copy protection in digital. an analog transfer would have done the job. ...hifitommy
My first foray into audiophile territory was in early 2000 and I bought Sony's first SACD player and had some Paradigm Studio reference speakers and a $3000 Denon AVR. I had a Celine Dion SACD that was digital recorded and mastered and it was insanely detailed. I had a Sting album mixed in DTS that was great cause they had backing vocals in the surround channels. I'm hoping music in Dolby Atmos takes off.
There are lots and lots of boutique audiophile grade classical music recorded in high definition. My own label 'Base2 Music' specialises in organ and classical and all recordings are made at 192 and 384, in 5.1 surround and Stereo and all available on pristine SACD discs. SACD is the disc of choice for Classical music listeners.
You forgot to mention that the latest Giles beatles remasters have been compressed and time corrected what nots. The original cds sounds better as they are not compressed and eq'd
@@takeiteasy6154 I think the Giles Martin remasters sound FANTASTIC, as well as the 2009's. The original CD's from the 80's are lifeless and quite frankly suck. Sold mine the moment the 2009 remasters were released.
Hi Steve. Great topic as always . I’m an avid fan of multichannel music just as much as stereo (both analog and digital). I still have my collections of both SACD’s and DVD audios and a few DTS surround music CD’s. I do stream music on TIDAL and Apple Music and have a decent collection of vinyl. You need to check out the new format for multichannel , immersive audio in Dolby Atmos. They’re mostly sampled at 48/24 and are available in TIDAL and Apple Music. As of now, there are so many titles that are available to stream. You do have to own an Apple Music 4K steaming box to be able to listen to them over HDMI but they’re amazingly good. The engineers that have mixed them have done such a great job to make the experience truly immersive . Better than most SACD’s I’ve owned . Highly recommended.
I still like SACD, a fantastic SACD is Grace Mayha, Last Live at DUG Tokyo. Just an incredible album. There is not one song on there that is not listenable, this little gal really rocks the house. And to play those SACD's, I use my old OPPO BDP-83 and strip the DSD signal out of the recording via HDMI that runs through the GeerFab Digital Break Out Box that sends that signal via S/PDIF to my Denafrips Ares II DAC, to the Denafrips Hades preamp and out to their Thallo amp, which feeds my KLH Model 5's. Also two SVS SB3000 subs in the mix. The soundstage is incredible, the instruments are very well detailed and separated. And the vocals, especially the female voice, in a good recording is simply incredible. And that is one thing about that GeerFab box, it makes everything sound so much cleaner and more detailed, as long as it is a decent recording. It will not fix crap, crap in, crap out. Surround sound? I ripped out the HT and went back to two channel. Movies today are crap, and my current listening position does not play well with surround. I will stick with what few SACDs we have out here, and this setup simply makes everything sound better, win win!
Or think of those who got into DAT... and then that ship sunk faster than the Titanic. Or how about the DAT vs. DCC format war that didn't even make it to having a first battle?
@@TheDanEdwards I’m still loving DAT. I have a pair of Sony PCM-7010F units which I use these days to edit sound effects recorded in the field to a Sony D7 DAT Recorder. In a word the sounds are lifelike.
The heck..... Thank you so much for that introduction to steve wilson... The moment i played luminol track i was surrounded with music (and that piano🥹). It was ethereal.
I have a DTS audio recording of Ten Sumners Tales by Sting. Absolutely love it in 5.1. I struggled to find any other recordings like this. Does anyone know where I can pick them up in 2022?
Quick note on hi quality streaming, a couple of stations “ Hi on Line Radio” and “Lynn” both out of Europe both stream for free at 24bit x 192khz constantly. They both have several music categories to chose from and sound way better then what I can from my CDs (my player may need upgraded) and better than most of what I can get out of Tidal. Other than going to your computer if you have a Yamaha receiver you can find then under Net Radio and go to hi quality stations where there are many others, some of them don’t sound as good as these.
I purchased a 2 channel SACD player last year for the classical discs, my UK living space being barely big enough to listen in stereo, which is why I think surround sound will not take off here. I have a quad vinyl pressing of Tubular Bells, although I have never heard that mix.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this. Now, I understand how the SACD, DVD-Audio, DSD fiasco played out. I loosely attempted to prepare for this. What a fruitless effort it was. I GAVE UP without nearly no money spent on upgrades.
I was SO excited when SACDs came out. I bought a high-end Sony ES player. I remember scouring the Tower Records shelves for SACD titles. Many titles were just single-layer SACD, which was SO stupid!!! Why would I pay $25 for a disc that I could only play on ONE of my 4 CD players?? (2 home + 2 cars). THEN... like Steve mentioned, the Stones titles WERE SACDs, but I was afraid to buy one because it did not say SACD on the package. What if I bought it and it was an older CD-only version. The stupidity level was set to 11 for the SACD rollout.
Thanks for the informative format discussion Steve! I never owned any SACD or DVD-audio due to lack of content however I did own some Grateful Dead disc from the early 2000's that were HDCD. What was the deal with HDCD disc's? Was it superior to CD or just snake oil?
I remember buying several CDs which were mastered using the HDCD mastering process, some of them definitely sounded smoother but any more detail(?) I couldn’t say they were. (I had a HDCD compatible player)
HDCD were 18-bit rather than 16, if you had a compatible player. I have some King Crimson, Joni Mitchell, & Bryan Ferry that sounded superb for their time, and have aged pretty well.
@danny tse funnily enough I was looking at their website last week at their latest releases. Generally, a consistent label for sound quality and dynamics, of course the management are some of the names behind the HDCD technology.
Just a few comments re Dvda, sacd and surround music. Dvda and sacd were trying to do several things at once, failing at most for the masses. They wanted to be hi res 2ch for audiophiles, multichannel music for the hot 5.1 home theater market of the early 2000s as DVD video took off, with most movies having 5.1 tracks that often sounded good in surround. Yes, not all were demo quality but I believe far more movies had good , sometimes great, surround soundtracks. Blu-ray solidified video surround audio with lossless 5.1-7.1 IMO, the surround music niche is fulfilled by concert, live performance dvd and Blu-ray. Yes there are gimmicky stinkers, but also a large number of outstanding live performance surround music video discs, with many throwing in a lossless 2ch track for purists. Assuming higher than 16/44 res is technically or sonically needed for even audiophiles, it’s an even harder sell for the masses weaned on lossy compressed and dynamic range compressed music the past 2+ decades Dvda fumbled for audiophiles by adding audible watermarks to the mlp encoded hi res tracks, destroying any value to audiophiles. Dvd video discs could always do lossless 24/96 2ch and lossless 48khz multichannel, or high bitrate lossy Dts multichannel, and Dts CDs could do 1.5kbps lossy multichannel, basically more like flac lossless, so Dvda was never needed other than to collect mlp license fees Sacd similarly tried to recoup fees from expired pcm and cd patents with dsd and the sacd disc format Technical arguments might be made that 1 bit 2.8mhz dsd sampling might improve time domain sound quality vs 16/44 pcm, but I’ll let tech geeks argue that one Both new sacd and Dvda discs are still produced and released, usually new transfers and remixed from source tapes by the Steve Wilson’s of the world as mentioned . And now we have BluRay discs that supercede DVDA for audio-only and music videos/concerts Not a Bad thing when done right, especially if you like good 5.1+ mixes, live performance or not, and get a true 24 bit transfer off original tapes
It's because you cannot edit or do any processing in DSD. So mist new digital is done in PCM. Once in PCM, there is practically no point in going up to DSD because it had to be DSD from the recording to mixing and mastering.
I don't own a surround system myself but 2 or 3 of my friends do, they're not audiophile types - - the thing is, I NEVER hear them playing music in surround - - I guess I need to ask them why - - and yeah, generally, if there actually is music going, it's coming from the front speakers with the volume turned down, basically it's there for mood purposes and background, it's rare anyone even mentions what tune is playing - - - hmmm - - 🤔 - - actually I'd bet that the surround set ups are used more when they watch movies than listening to music.
You make great points, but to suggest classical music enthusiasts mostly listed on Bluetooth speakers and in the car, that's so not true. Added to that, many hundreds of classical issues are issued on hybrid SACD/CD format. In fact ALL of the BIS titles are issued on that format. Classical music fans DO care about the quality of the recorded sound.
I love SACD and Hi Rez streams, own an sizable catalog, but i could care less if it comes with a Multi channel mix. IMHO, the barrier is cost. Most HT receivers have music listening as an afterthought. A lot are about rumbling the room with an explosion than accurately recreating the impact of a kick drum. Take $3k which is a lot of money for most people. Invest it in quality AVR, Speaker package, and Multi disc player capable of both Blue-ray and SACD playback. Take the same amount and invest in a integrated\ 2 channel receiver, a pair of towers or sub\satellite, and SACD capable CD player. Compare the sound quality of the two. IMHO you will always get more out of that 2 channel rig than than the HT receiver trying to do double duty. A lot of people just do not have the resources and space to invest in a high end Multi channel rig and speakers. Asinine mixes aside, even with best engineering and mixing the industry just doesn't get that the investment in a dedicated multichannel music listening system is cost prohibitive.
Thank You Steve! I feel blessed !!! I love the Porcupine Tree and other projects by Steven Wilson since mid 90s. And I'm so lucky to enjoy his multichannel recordings! But then came proper Athmos recordings and they are so much easier to enjoy! The thing with stereo or quadro or 5.1, is that speakers placement and room size/distance between speakers play a huge role for the end result. With object based Athmos, receivers are reproducing the correct image (sound stage) much better with much less effort from user side. And honestly, most of us have movies setups, and all they need is decent receiver, three good speakers for the front and a decent sub (preferably two). The surround/height speakers can be kinda 'junk'. Its really sad that there is almost no talking about multichannel. I guess most audiophiles are way to conservative to appreciate it.
Yes, I agree in lamenting why surround sound for music wasn't explored when the hardware finally caught up where it was now available to mainstream consumers. Quadraphonic of the early 70s wasn't ready for prime time. I remember experimenting with L-R set ups I learned from my EE uncle in the 1970s while in junior high school. As an adult, I tried Hughes SRS, their phantom surround. But Dolby Pro-Logic really made a big step. In car audio, we have always had multi-speaker front/rear/sub configurations. Some of us had equipped the systems with digital delays for spacial expansion of the enclosed space. Dolby Digital, and later DTS both refined the surround experience until it was very satisfactory. Now with dsp and psycho-acoustics, the results are luscious. I recall owning a car stereo system from Sherwood with a DTS decoder for surround audio in the car. And a Carver Cathedral delay unit too. Most of my audio days and passion has cooled. Post-audiophile lifestyle now after a bad divorce where the ex-wife stole my system. She did leave behind my old AR speakers from 1982. Too old fashioned looking. But I no longer have a system to drive them. I do have some DTS coded music recordings, but no means to play them back. Maybe after Powerball some day, LOL! I wonder sometimes why we don't have these legacy and current dsp based digital surround systems released as software based encoding and decoding algorithms for our laptops and desktops. CPUs and GPUs are more than powerful enough to do all this on the fly today. It would be much cheaper for some of us budget audiophiles to tinker with and set up our systems. Video games already take advantage of HW in desktops for decades now.
As always lots of interesting stuff, I was on the buy an sacd player track but gave up after buying one cd that I could find, it mostly failed for lack of current content in my opinion
I think I hit the trifecta on this episode: a life long DIY recording engineer that listens to almost exclusively multichannel music on vintage (late 80s early 90s) Infinity Speakers. (I’m guessing that exec was a Harmon era Infinity CEO). Oh, and I listen to a lot of Classical music, acoustic instruments being the only non processed instruments by the way. Electric guitars are all heavily “processed”, before you even touch the string. I even listen to vinyl on my Dolby Surround processor. So yes, all music. Stereo sounds dull and flat to me now, even on my own wonderful IRS Beta speakers, and all other stereo systems that I hear everyone else raving over. I’m 66, I don’t care at this point what anyone else likes. I use my IRS Betas as both the fronts of my surround, and as my stereo system. Most audiophiles I’ve talked to have never heard surround presented on an audiophile system, of course they don’t like it. They listen on their cheap tv surround speakers; I get why, it’s expensive and you need a crazy large room. It’s impractical as hell. It’s worth it, to me, because it just sounds better.
At 52 years old I finally managed to own a Sansui turntable and a Haman Karden 330a receiver . We always had good systems in our house growing up in the 70s which I wasn’t allowed to touch but nothing from Japan or Germany as my dad was a soldier in the war
I think I have only 4 or 5 SACD's, if that. The first time I saw SACD on the lable I had no clue what it was. The second format you mentioned, I have no clue if I have any. Oh well 🙄.
I remember my first set of speakers the Technics SB-L300 and they sounded very good, but something was missing when playing vocals. I went to a Lafayette store, and I heard these Sony SS-610 set and the vocals where perfect with good bass but muddy highs. I bought them and operated them in conjunction with the Technics and the combination of the two was VERY satisfying. So, when a friend wants me to recommend speakers, usually I recommend two pair of a different brand that when combined sounds great.
Steve, you're right about the highly compressed tracks you listen to that will never benefit from hi-res. However, in the smaller classical and jazz markets, there are many fine recordings coming out, some in surround, that are NOT compressed and eq'd for earbuds. Listen to nearly anything on Pentatone or BIS, for example. And BIS is still selling SACDs.
I listen to a lot of electronic/ambient music with a 4 channel speaker system and a Lyngdorf high end processor and it sounds great. Immersive music as it really should be heard.
Thank you Steve, for another great Video! Especially your thoughts about the SACD and DVD Audio Formats are very interesting, and I agree with you. As I worked from 1980 more than 20 Years in the Audio Business as a Salesman I see the introduction of the CD and later than the introduction of SACD and DVD Audio. I never understand why the Industry don't support these Formats. I'm always been a Anolog Guy, so this don't bother me to much , but I think this was a wasted opportunity.. By the way Steve.. Are you in Germany at the Munich High-End Show next week? Wish you all the best.
I lost in the BD/HD-DVD war when I bet on the wrong horse first. I still have those discs and several players before they departed to the realm of obscurity, but it very definitely sounds just like the SACD/DVD-A wars too
To state the obvious, when a company thinks about designing, altering, or presenting a speaker, the whole process is aimed directly at filling/capturing a segment of the market. An industrial designer may think about looks. An engineer may think about reducing resonance. Another engineer might think about cost. But most big speaker companies start with market segment and work from there. Of course good companies find ways to produce high quality, innovative, beautiful, good sounding products within the constraints of running a business. Against our instincts, we have to give credit to companies like Apple and Bose for starting from the position of creating products based on a technology first and then selling that to a public that isn't already asking for it. I really don't like their products, but they're innovative in ways that most audiophile manufacturers are not. But what gets a lot of audiophiles excited is largely not from large scale manufacturers anyway. We tend to think in terms of smaller scale craft production rather than mass production. Obviously again we use and buy what we can afford and I personally have always only used upscale mass market products. But we tend to focus on what is presented as "sound quality first" products. There are plenty of companies that aim directly at that market. But as Steve says, it's not a very large segment of the market, so those companies tend to be smaller. No longer are the Sonys, Yamahas, and Philipses of the world particularly interested in audiophiles like they were between 1960 and 1995. If you see something that attempts to be "the best audio quality" from a major manufacturer these days, it's likely more of a way for them to show off their technical abilities so they can sell more sound bars and car audio and Bluetooth earbuds, the way major car manufacturers have entries into the racing world. The connections between their high end and the bread and butter of their business is only in the marketing.
Sorry for the ramble here, but I kind of strayed from my original point. I think what most speaker makers are thinking about when designing or refining a speaker is how many of them can they sell. I think they probably hope that they can create a clear leader in a segment that will get a lot of positive buzz and hit a home run. I imagine companies dream of releasing the next KEF LS50 or Klipsch RP600M or Elac Debut. When KLH released the new Model 5 and it caught the imagination of the public they must have been filling hot tubs with Champaign because that's pretty much exactly what a company like that is trying to do - come out with a product that fills the needs of an eager market and develops a good reputation in that market. I think that is where most speaker companies start and stick with from the beginning to the end of the process. I think most of them are thinking, "Is this going to find an audience?" for the entire time they're developing a model. That's my guess anyway. Of course there are people who don't do that. There are, and bless them for being this way, people who will go out and just make something that grabs their own imagination and fulfills their own sense of what would be good and useful and pleasing. And then they do the best they can to satisfy their own sense of what would be a desirable piece of equipment. And then they just offer it to the public and hope that enough other people see the value and beauty of what they have created. That's the stuff that a lot of us really cherish. But unfortunately it's a limited business model and companies that do that rarely get very big. I think we don't realize how rare that really is. I think many companies like to present their offerings as if they are created that way. But the reality is, I believe, a lot more market driven than it appears to be on the surface. Again, that's just my guess.
More good stuff from my audio guru!! I just wanted to thank you for your help and common sense approach to audio and I actually purchased the Outlaw Audio RR2160mkll due to your reviews on it. I absolutely LOVE it! There’s not much out there on this unit, but safe to say you nailed it! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
Dylan's then-current album 'Love And Theft' came out on SACD (it was about 18 months old). Also: the DVD-A of 'American Beauty' sounds wildly better than the stereo original, I can't speak for any other GD remixed albums as I never heard them.
True, but I still wonder why it wasn’t released on SACD when the album initially came out? Remember at that time Sony was releasing lots of re-issue albums on SACD, so it wasn’t plant capacity.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac It was one of the 15 simultaneously released titles on SACD for Dylan (there was even a box to keep them in for the well-funded fan). Titles were chosen primarily for their 5.1 surround possibilities (but in the end not all were remixed). Only BoB had been released before that as a single-layer, stereo only.
I love the fact that Apple has heavily promoted Spatial Audio but as far as I can tell it's not lossless which is a huge bummer. To clarify I'm referring to Dolby Atmos played through the Apple TV 4K at 640kb. I'm hoping the next version of the Apple TV will remove this limitation.
@@poturbg8698 I meant the Dolby Atmos available through Apple Music which can play through the Apple TV 4K but only at 640kb. I'm hoping the next generation of the Apple TV will remedy this issue.
Being a new listener talking about multi channel I was hoping to hear what you think about ATMOS. My position is if you are going to have speakers over head there should be speakers under neath, too. Its just another new format to get people to spend ridiculous amounts of money.
After listening to 5.1 SACD going back to stereo is like going back to a Coke gone flat, no fizz. Today I enjoy 5.1 SACDs via an OPPO-205 to a Sony TA-P9000ES Analog Multi-Channel Preamplifier. I am also excited about Dolby ATMOS music from Apple Music but I do not yet have a means to it.
Right on Brother. I’m 62 with a nice stereo and I’m a musician, and see most of these things in the same way you do. Is it our generation? Probably in part. But it’s not all of it. My brother (2 yrs younger) who’s also a musician, is squarely in the Engineer camp that you describe. The love of good sound. Innate? Learned? Both probably. I get it though.
Thank God there are more exceptions. For people who take the time for it, there are quite a lot well recorded albums to find. But of course never enough.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac Hi Steve, please check out Aeolus Music! They are still producing quality music and SACDs! By the way, your video, as always, very informative!
I totally agree that Sony and Warner dropped the ball on SACD and DVD Audio formats. The true creative potential of the media have barely been realized, particularly in the area of surround sound. Yet, I continue to support these hi-res formats, because in classical, jazz, and other acoustic genres they can provide a bit extra space, headroom, and detail. In the case of music using electronic instruments, where the performance is created mainly in a studio (with all the attendant post production tweaking, EQ, compression, etc), I'm not so sure the extra res is that necessary or even perceptible, though the multi channel possibilities could still be effective. Having said all that, standard Red Book CDs played through a good outboard DAC can sound mighty impressive.
Used to be that it didn't matter so much how the speaker was "voiced". Most amps and receivers came with tone controls and you could more or less tailor the sound to what you wanted. Graphic equalizers were also seen as totally legit fifi components. Somewhere along the line the "minimal signal path" freaks gave the manufacturers permission to give you an off/on switch and a few input buttons.
Fascinating discussion. Do the Stones SACDs sound better than the previous CDs of the same albums? I wonder how something modern like Moby's Play album would sound on SACD? or Talking Head's Stop Making Sense?
A major obstacle to recording in DSD is that the DSD bitstream cannot be edited or mixed without being converted to PCM or analog, and then converted back to DSD. This is documented in various videos on the PS Audio and Octave Music channels.
Indeed, but a special PCM hi-res format (DxD) is used for editing DSD tracks before conversion back to DSD. It was especially developed by Philips to overcome this deficiency.
I think the barrier to SACD and DVDA was the requirement to buy new equipment....again. After abandoning vinyl, for 8-track, then cassettes, then CD's, surround was a very tough sell.
Love the two Dead albums in surround, brought serious clarity never even hinted at before. So many good surround discs, you are on a bummer trip sorry to say. B. Ferry, Roxy, Crimson, Floyd, ELP, Yes, Beatles, Lennon, Harrison, Heads, R.E.M. plus the old quad on SACD (which I am sure you dislike) such as Loggins and Messina, Earth, Wind, and Fire, Return to Forever. Miles Davis, Santana, and on and on. Lots of fun stuff. You are spreading yourself a bit thin by not going into enough details on these great surround discs. 25 min. is a long video for the content offered up here.
With regard to SACD recordings, I remember visiting Mark Levinson’s Red Rose Audio Salon where he was promoting SACD and actually made eight recordings in the his small audio salon that sounded to my ears as beyond belief. Unfortunately, DSD is really not catching on but I am finding so many PCM high-quality recordings that the need for DSD in my system is waning. Much of The recordings produced in DSD now are being released by mediocre composer/musicians which I have no need for. This could be the bigger problem for DSD technology. To this day I can’t figure out how Mark was able to record such fantastic music with famous musicians in his small store and get such remarkable sonics. Less than a year later, Mark Levinson showed up in my Holistic Pet Supply store and over the course of several months we became friends. He is one tough cookie who wants what he wants when he wants it and perhaps that’s why he has been a force to be reckoned with in the industry during his career in Audio.
@@stimpy1226 yeah I heard the stories about that side. Luckely I met him once on best behaviour. I don't get along with most narcissist in a prolonged aquintance
@@annebokma4637 You don’t know the half of it. What went on between Mark Levinson needing my help was quite personal so I really can’t discuss what our business relationship that turned into a friendship was all about.
Thanks for this video . And it’s true we al want our records and our cds to sound the way we want them to sound , or the way we think it should sound in our system. Thanks
I believe DSD was originally developed as an archive format for analog master tapes because it is (supposedly) as close to analog in terms of sound that a digital format can get. Might be why old analog albums are popular on SACD?
About the SACD, DVD-audio (and for that matter, any TRUE digital audio format) the most distinguishing fact is that SACD versions are truly Hi-Res audio in the sense that they were produced from a super clean master (and not today's "remastered" scam versions there are in every online "hi-res" music platform) and correctly engineered after that (you know, no noisy tape hiss, plenty of room for dynamic range, crystal clear vocals, zero noise, etc), specially *JAPANESE* editions of SACDs. Other than that, digital formats (when non-destructively compressing data) are just a mere way of packing the bits and obfuscating the musical info (i.e. if someone decides they want to lock you into his format by using some form of DRM).The final quality of digital output is exactly the same for any digital format, by definition.
Beware of Audiophiliac scammers!!! Don’t fall for it!!
Thanks, Steve. I figured that out by three things you would never do. But I won’t say what those three things are, because I don’t want the scammer to fix the mistakes. Are you able to delete the scammer’s lure?
Is that the "you win a giveaway"?
@@joejones4172 - Yes
so this give away is a scam oh ok Thank You
I am always amazed how important the quality of the recording is. Sometimes i hear some recordings over my system and i can't barely believe that my system could sound that good! Makes me wonder what really high end is.
To me, as the owner of a small recording studio, the difference between audiophile speakers and studio monitors is that audiophile speakers blend the various components of a piece of music together in a pleasing way, while studio monitors separate those components for artistic and technical analysis, both individually and as part of the instrumental and (and often vocal) whole.
For my main audiophile listening, I have a marvelous pair of Bowers and Wilkins 805D3s. Their blend of sounds is ideal for almost any type of music. (I bought them following your review some years ago, Steve).
My main studio monitors are ATC SCM25A powered monitors. They are three-way, tri-amped monitors, with a separate amp for each speaker. They do a jaw-dropping job of separating the components of a piece of music. They can sound pleasing, but their only job is to tell the truth. For instance, when listening to a vocal we've tracked, I can easily tell if the singer's tongue was inflexible as she or he sang (thus creating a less open tone and timbre). I've had guitar players decide to switch to a slightly firmer or looser pick.
Once something's recorded, we listen on the ATCs both to each individual track and the whole piece together, to make sure we've captured something we're satisfied with.
But do I then mix on them? Only at the very end. Most of my mixing is done on my Avantone MixCubes, which intentionally have not much sonic range. (Some people use old Yamaha NS-10 speakers for the same purpose).
I also make sure to see how the mix sounds in mono through the MixCubes. Why? As you point out, most people hear music in the background, from what to them is essentially a mono source, for example a stereo in another room in the house. So it's important to make sure the mix sounds good in mono.
The final checks on every mix are just that - 1) on an okay stereo system just off my control room, listening from the control room; 2) on a fairly decent Bluetooth speaker, via Bluetooth, from the same room, and 3) on at least one car stereo, while driving.
If the mix passes those final 3 tests, it'll sound good anywhere.
When it's done the client gets to listen to it on the ATCs, where they really get to hear all the components, and then over my Bowers and Wilkins, where they hear more as a whole. Then I send them to their own car to listen, by themselves, for final approval. If they come back through the door with a big smile, we're done.
Many many thanks for this insight rarely put together in such a clear way. I was considering buying the ATC SCM 20 ASL for home listening to replace my Kef R3 bookshelfs...
That’s true. Lots of people still track and mix on NS-10’s. And as much as everyone says they hate them, there is a reason those Yama’s are out there.
In the studio, a guy is trying to track things accurately. Me personally am not trying to get the euphonic sound, I’m going for accuracy.
Many thousands of music lovers use 'studio monitor' type speakers for their hi-fi, including me. Brands like ATC, Spendor, Rogers, B&W, PMC and so on. They use this type of speaker because they want the least colouration introduced to their listening experience.
I could have guessed your personal listening system would consist of a B&W product. They are used by many a studio as monitors. Boston Symphony Orchestra comes to mind. (O: I like the 'truth' from my Martin Logans from the current Masterpiece series.
Wow bravo for this explanation 👏 👍
You may get a kick out of this! I'm 72 years old and the first time I ever heard stereo was from the Perry Como Show. What he did was introduce a new sound called stereo, this is back in the early to mid fifties and I remember this clearly. He had folks tune in a perticular station on the radio in your area and then put it a few feet away from the television set. Perry then performed live on his show, amost all the shows back then were live, and you heard stereo for the first time. One channel was from the TV and the other channel was from the radio. I was very young at the time! I remember being so amazed by it! It was a first, Perry Como was the first one to ever do this or the first artist to ever been heard in stereo! He also pioneered some other stuff in the recording and record industry also.
Great story - thanks!
The 99%'s don't know what they are missing! I'm one of those Audiophiles that buys a lot of Classical SACDS and I appreciate the format as many of these recordings sound great with beautiful sound. I agree that many regular CDs that are not SACDs sound great due to an excellent recording technique and quality of the musicians. I'm an older guy who is tired of listening to the same old Rock n Roll bands of my youth listening to 2, 3 4 minute ditties of simple songs with little or no musical development or musicians who play great but can't sing. Lastly, always looking forward to your cool viewer systems of the day showcasing the many Audiophiles and Music Lovers who take pride and pleasure in their rigs.
I’m glad I’m not the only one who is not interested in re-living my days in high school or listening to what was then great music, and still moves me on occasion; but it’s not 1969 forever. At a certain point you realize you can’t go back however much you might want to. The future is now. Good music is contemporary and it partakes of the eternal; in a word, it is art. I’m looking for artists that can help me get a handle on the times in which I live, because, at my age, I feel my grip slipping. I can’t hold onto the past, I have to let go and find happiness where I am now. Music helps me do that.
Thank you Steve-so much great stuff here. I've been a recording engineer for 40 years and an avid record listener and collector for 25 more and his reflections on the way the industry has evolved from a sound quality point of view are priceless and quite accurate. I just wanted to elaborate on a couple of points-I too thought surround music would become a viable of component of the industry but I failed to see that more and more people would be listening through earphones as their primary place for serious listening which made surround a moot issue. It also affected how we compress recordings that we mix and master. The availabilty of look ahead digital limiter plug ins has allowed us to compress and limit as much as we want without fear of creating distortion and, especially through earphones on phones with weak headphone amps, this was the only way to create an impactful experiance for the casual listener. Plus I've found that many clients, even ones that considered themselves sound concious always preferred the louder mix when I gave them the choice. To conclude, instead of moving towards a high quality sonic experience through surround and high resolution formats, this century had seen us move firmly in the opposite direction through the primacy of mp3 and other compression schemes played through earbuds and small speakers that prioritized convenience over quality as Steve so correctly points out. The audiophile world is a genuine but very small segment of the market and so many companies will use the term for marketing only that the average consumer has no reall awareness the differences these sorts of recordings offer.
Such a good comment. Exploited for marketing - yes. I mean what else the point of Apple promoting “Hi-Rez” when both their gear and their software can’t even render/play it. …
Spot on. Thanks for your comment.
Yup. Every tech reviewer tells us the latest version of whatever crap apple is pedaling sounds amazing, true lifelike sound. Tech reviewers reach tens of millions of viewers. Their message regarding what sounds good is really influencing the youth of today.
@@westernartifact580
Apple-Crapple!
Poor Wi-Fi performance in every internet service call I do daily.
People think because they spend more on the equipment that it will be better....
Apple "music"? No thanks!
🎶🙄🎶
Great points.I got into surround music late in life becaue I love classic rock. I wish there was more content.
I decided pretty early in my audio system journey that 16 bit 44.1 was good enough for me. How fortunate that was for me. Old CDs are readily available. Even the audiophile recordings I want to buy are cheaper in that format. It all ends up on a network hard drive and streamed through a media server that is tricked out to play just that format as well as possible. I am glad the other formats did not obsolete my system. Allows me to be happy with what I have got.
And no, I did not settle for mediocrity. 44.1 played on a system with a clock optimized for that format can be very natural.
You have NO IDEA what your missing I assure you. Some of the SACD's coming out today for music from the 70's/80's will BLOW YOUR MIND over the CD copy you have...even if its the original pressing before the whole "re-mastering" over-compressed nonsense became the norm. Its night and day.
@@billiondollarbaby3276 Sounds like you are finding stuff that is good with the music you like. That's great.
I have a pretty good idea of the difference format makes. I compared the identical tracks of well recorded stuff from LessLoss, MA Recordings and Chetsky and played the same track at 192 or downgraded to 44.1. The 192 is better given similar clock. Not night and day, but better. The 192 with normal clock vs 44.1 with extremely good clock... I prefer the 44.1. I wonder if a lot of what you're getting with these new releases is a better mastering along with the hires.
@@user-od9iz9cv1w Im comparing Rock titles most of which were poorly recorded in the 1st place (Unlike Classical music). Its not so much about remastering as it is about REMIXING from the original master tapes.
@@billiondollarbaby3276 Yes, my favorite versions of Rolling Stones 1969s albums are the SACD remasters from a number of years ago (as well as the vinyl cut from the DSD masters), and Giles Martin's remixes (not remasters, but actual remixes!) of Beatles albums have become my favorite versions of those albums (unless for a different take I want to listen to the original mono mixes, which as is the case with the whilte album and Srgnt Pepper, very different mixes than the stereo versions. Still, Giles Martin remixes have become my faves).
Totally agree. Love picking up original CD pressings of 70s and 80s music for cheap.
While I stream much of what I listen to, I do still buy CDs. I love the new SACDs put out by Chandos, primarily, of classical titles and performances. The depth of sound field, the sound stage width and instrument location are so good sounding to me.
I bought Respighi's Church Windows/Birds on Chandos some years ago and man does that cd have amazing sound. I believe Tate conducted it and the gong will destroy/clip any amp and/or speaker that can't handle it. GREAT fun to take into an audio store and watch the salesman reach for the remote.
I started buying SACDs in 2000 and I have never stopped buying them. The supply from the likes of Universal Music Japan, ARS Produktion and BIS (to name a few) keep filling my shelves. I admit I have more SACDs than I can realistically have time to listen to, and they keep coming out! ESOTERIC is realeasing yet more DG titles this month! Streaming? What's that? I have never done any streaming and I don't intend to at any time!
Great!
Always been curious about SACD but never had a chance to do A/B comparison of them back when it would have been a thing for me. Now it's mostly become various Hi-Res digital files, 24/192 mostly. Streaming doesn't make sense to me, I'll just rather buy the album, download it and play it back on my non-connected DAP.
whats the best SACD player/transport you will recommend ? I am trying to get a Sony CDP-X7ESD but it doesnt play SACD.....
@@tango_gru I have an Esoteric K 07, It is a truly wonderful machine. I once had the chance to listen to a K 03, It was also a sublime experience. Luxman has an outstanding SACD player in the D10. The Marantz SA 10 is also worth considering. Still, you must listen to any player for yourself to make an informed decision.
I started buying CDs again about a year ago after realizing I was running out of room to properly care for and store my growing LP collection in an apartment. Already knowing a good deal about labels like MoFi and Analogue Productions I took a chance on SACDs despite their price and never having heard anything about them before. I was a kid in the early aughts so I have absolutely no recollection of SACDs ever existing alongside CDs in a retail environment and I usually have to describe to people under 30 what the hell it is I'm buying exactly, but overall I have to say I'm impressed. My system is as modest as you can possibly have (a Marantz UD5007 through a starter Yahama receiver), but for my present space and needs it gives me a solid sound that's a lot better than solid through good headphones. A big motivation for me to own physical media is having unlimited access to my favorite music and movies in the best possible quality, and it's hard to argue with an (allegedly) pure copy of the master tape. It's more likely to appeal to me than most people my age because I'm the guy who likes Bob Dylan, Johnny Cash, Tom Waits, The Doors etc, but releases like Run DMC, Pixies and Weezer have also really shown their merit. If labels continue to expand their catalogs beyond 1979 (or secure a few more BIG discographies) the format has a chance to stick around. It will probably hit it's end timeline-wise when music gets to the pro-tools era, but as you said, SACD has really only accounted for maybe 1% of the analog era as it stands.
I remember the Stereo vs Quadraphonic Debate and the Quadraphonic proponents predicted the death of 2 Channel Stereo. This was decades before “Surround Sound” and major manufacturers of the time were promoting their new lines of Quadraphonic Equipment and the big record companies began releasing quadraphonic versions of Albums by the biggest artists of the day along with the Stereo Album versions. Despite all the hype, technology, yada, yada, yada 2 Channel Stereophonic survived then and it’s still in vogue today albeit in digital formats and that has brought us to this point in time and the current debates. It’s part of the history of audiophilia in the consumer electronics marketplace.
Interesting Presentation Steve 👍🏻👍🏻👍🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
When Pioneer came out with the DV-563A, an affordable universal player for SACD and DVD-Audio, I bought one as soon as I could. Surround mixes of some of my favorite albums were what attracted me to the formats. Sadly, the labels seemed to stop releasing titles at about the same time. But I love my surround copies of Kind of Blue, Dark Side of the Moon, Rumors, Tapestry, Brothers in Arms, Gaucho, Pet Sounds, Hotel California, Tommy, The Nightfly, Kamakiriad, and a stereo only SACD of Excitable Boy. They're now played on an Oppo BDP-105. Quality-wise, I'm eternally grateful to CDs for bringing analog tapes out of the vaults. For me, 'hi-rez' doesn't add anything unless it's one of the very few albums actually recorded at better than CD resolution - otherwise, you're just buying the identical pair of shoes in a bigger, more expensive box.
One of my favorites in sacd is Kiko by Los Lobos. I still have my DV 47a. Did the 563 pre date the 47a?
@@michaelkaiser5994 Kiko is a wonderful album. Sorry I missed the SACD version. I love the Kiko Live blu ray, with stereo and surround options. It looks like the DV-47A was one of the very first universal players, coming out in mid 2002, at about $1,200. The DV-563A appeared in late 2003, and cost $250, which is why I waited for it. I still have it, but the Oppo took over as my primary. I'm basing my dates on reviews
I have two of those Pioneer DV 563a's, one for a vintage Pioneer 780 receiver and the other for a Reissong A-10 amp and they sound great thru this player.
But did the Stones sound better on SACD or did you just hear more noise in their crappy recordings? My Let it Bleed record sounds like Mick phoned the vocals in.
I love the wide range of reviews you do, Steve, from the bargain priced gear to the expensive. I have no interest purchasing 99.9 percent of the stuff you discuss, but I believe it makes me a more knowledgeable audiophile just knowing about the gear. And your comments about vinyl got me back into analog sound after thirty years of being digital - thanks for this! Keep up the great stuff!
Thanks Ralph, nice to hear
Thanks for showing my system Steve!!!!!! Love the show so much!
The light at 6:30 is lovely.
I have a dire straits brothers in arms sacd and it sounded way better then my regular cd on my blue ray/sacd player
Hi Steve. Just to throw a spanner in the works re SACD. I recently did an extensive listening test, on one of your favourites, the Luxman D10X. I ran through a number of SACD, playing the CD and SACD layer. The thing is that, in all but one (possible) instance, the CD layer sounded obviously better than the SACD counterpart. So, do not despair if you have no high res. CDs still have a lot to offer. :0)
Additionally in my experience, Streaming, even at high res (and even on very expensive units) sounds flat and one dimensional, compared to a decent CD player (of a few thousands upwards).
Im so glad to watch this video. Ive been an audiophile since the 80’s as a teenager. I woke up one day and they are talking SACD, i thought what the h&ll just happened… ive got cds and whats this. The best streamed music cannot make a piano sound like a piano despite my ribbons. CDs are still the best.
I wonder how much higher the production cost of a SACD versus a CD is. Then when an average CD costs about 15 bucks nowadays, and a SACD three times that - what's going on then? I bet the Rolling Stones can tell us...
@@alphaniner3770 MoFi SACDs retail for $30.00, you should try those.
The value of your take and perspective really shows with these types of videos. Great job.
This is funny. Surround sure as hell isn't dead to me. I just got the White Allbum, Abbey Road, Electric Ladyland, and Appetite for Destruction to name a few! The majority of my favorite recordings are SACDs because the hi res and surround elements can really take my favorite albums to a new level. Many SACDs were classic rock and while I was simply burned out on listening to Aerosmith's Toys in the Attic in stereo for the god knows how many'th time over the years getting it on SACD was almost like hearing it again for the first time it opened up the soundscape and improved it so much. SACD does this for alot of my favorite classic rock, as do BR, and DVDA. Beatles, Doors, Elton John, Pink Floyd never sounded better on any other media IMO and I play it all, but of course my system is tailored for 5.1 surround. If you're into classic rock there is a hell of alot more available than just that Talking Heads box set which I'd never heard of so thanks for mentioning!
Steve, I agree with you to some extant, but I listen to classical and there are MANY titles !!!
I came late to sacd, but I love it. I bought a Marantz SA KI about 3 years ago. Since then I buy sacd if available and have been known to spend way too much for oop titles.
I recognize that they could have rolled it out better. And yes the lack of major label support is baffling.
In the US, after the initial marketing failure, SACD titles are licensed from the major labels to reissue labels (such as Mobile Fidelity, Intervention Records, Analogue Productions, etc.) for release on SACD. Last week saw the SACD releases of Elvis' "Blue Hawaii" (licensed from Sony Music) and Mark Knopfler's soundtrack to the movie "Local Hero" (licensed from Warner Bros. Records); both SACDs were reissued by Mobile Fidelity. June 2022 will see the SACD release of Quincy Jones' "The Dude" on Intervention Records (licensed from A&M Records/Universal Music). In Japan, the world's second biggest music market and #1 music market for physical mediums, SACDs are typically released directly from the record companies.
Steve, I have always found that Deutsche Grammophon produce very high quality recordings issued on high quality pressings. They know that their target market is a more informed and discerning one. They are quite transparent with respect to their approach to recording and distribution media. Today their releases often include hi-res and Atmos versions via disc and downloads. Their marketing usually has links to streaming services such as Apple Music which I use. A a result, within minutes of reading of a new release I can be listening to it on the system which I recently shared with you in my submission to the VSOTD.
I really appreciate and enjoy your videos and podcasts.
Thanks Steve! Another great installment. Really appreciate the background and information on SACD and four channel playback. It’s very interesting to realize how low on the list of priorities audio quality really is to most labels.
I do disagree with you a bit on the recording studio comments. My experience has been that engineers and producers strive to get the most beautiful sound they can. They will always give you a test mix and send you home to listen on every system you can get your hands on in order to test the broadest range of listening experiences.
Anyway, love the channel. Keep up the great work!
I can verify your points at about 7:40 regarding music being mixed with a specific ‘ambience’ in mind. I have several 45 RPM records in my collection with the same track on both sides, with one side being labeled ‘Radio Version.’ I couldn’t hear (or my system didn’t reveal) much of a difference, but the recording/mastering engineers thought there was enough of one to label it as such.
And I agree with your points at and about 8:20 (that most of us listen to music in the background, or while involved in other activities), and that is certainly true of streaming music. One of the things I like about streaming is that it requires little active management; while phonographs and CDs require that you be at or near the machine to tend to loading fresh media. And albums or CDs are tracks intentionally arranged together, often with an ‘introduction’ a climax,’ and a conclusion. How often do you listen to a CD with your eyes closed and you can tell from the way a track starts up, it’s pace, tone, clues you in, this is the last song? Because you’re there, in the room, it’s more efficient just to sit down and really listen to the music. Do you go downstairs to put on an album before you do the dishes? I don’t. I go downstairs and stay there; dishes can wait until the morning.
I also agree with your point at 20:00 (that everyone needs to please themselves) although many of us (even after all these years) are still searching, or at least open to ‘all’ or ‘new’ music. Although, I also think that a large part of the audiophile journey is to define ‘your’ sound, both by the selection of tracks in your collection, and by the gear on the shelf.
Just my 2 cents.
Wow Steve everything you said about the old Days of Analog is so true, as with your statement of Recording Engineers not really putting their heart into it is quite evident.
I'm 62 years Old and I build Speakers Hi-end Bookshelf and any Engineer either doing the Recording of Music or Designing a loudspeaker must have 110% of his Heart into
what he is doing that being intellect and that artist empirical awareness of the Gift of hearing good Music and then passing it on to others via the Recording or the Lould Speaker.
I would love to send you a pair in the next 6 months and would be horned as a fellow Audiophile.
Best regards
John
Steve, you are a nice man. Music industry isn't. Plus, modern music industry is a servant to agenda. Enjoy what you have and what you like
As an owner of Court of the Crimson King and Starless… you are absolutely correct, Steven Wilson is a gifted engineer who absolutely gets how surround should work and has the ability to work in those extra dimensions. That being said, a good friend got the Talking Heads brick and WHOA!!! Jerry Harrison REALLY gets it, at least as it pertains to the Heads catalog. Though honestly he’s been a gifted producer for some time (notably the early-mid 90’s album Live-Throwing Copper, brilliant!). I still believe in music for/in surround sound and wish some newer music was worthy of the effort to be recorded and/or mixed in surround. I think Jack White, The Black Keys, and particularly Muse could sound otherworldly. I feel perhaps the industry didn’t push for it because as it became apparent the direction in which music distribution was headed, they may have had concerns about the viability of being able to download or stream an uncompressed or hi-res x.1 surround file. Quad was more than interesting when well implemented, but that seems to be the deal. At that point it’s no longer enough to be well played, recorded, produced, and mastered…it must then be exceptionally well engineered. Which of course adds another hand to pay…
Steve (or anyone w/info) will you please mention your audio diffusers you have on the wall behind you as well as where /how to buy them? What a great look w/functionality snuck right in. If they are indeed, diffusers as they appear to be. Thank you in advance.
GIK Acoustic
Yes, mastering is a big problem and has been for some time. Heck, back in the day, the execs used to listen to their mixes broadcast to telephone or AM radio because they wanted them to sound good on low-fidelity systems. However, when I'm listening to Qobuz I can tell if the stream is 24 bits, regardless of mastering quality. 48 kHz vs. 96 vs. 192 doesn't matter as much as the bit count, at least to my ears.
I listen to hi res Amazon streaming through a fiios DAC, and it sounds fantastic.
Success through lower expectations! I agree with your observation, and it’s sad how people are generally satisfied with mediocrity. I just recently opened up and replaced the three belts on my 400-disc Sony DVP-CX777ES. This unit is connected directly to a pair of Edifier S3000 Pro Audiophile powered bookshelf speakers (my listening space is very limited, so this is my solution). I am in love with high-res music again!
The most amazing thing is that today, a lot of folks have all the equipment needed to experience good surround music in their own homes. Any DVD player, played through a home home theater system will give a very good experience with a good DVD audio disc. Not only that, but Sony DVD players almost all play SACD as well. All most folks need to do to enjoy surround music is buy the discs.
Thanks for the stories, Steve. There are many product reviews out there, but few people have your wealth of experience to share. The reviews might be the bread-and-butter content, but please keep telling stories, doing interviews, etc. The non-review content is great for those of us who aren't actively shopping for a new component. That has to be most viewers, right?
Hi Steve, thanks! I would be very interested to hear what you have to say specifically about Blu-ray and Blu-ray Audio. I ask because I'm surprised that some big and important audio releases (e.g. The Beatles "Let it be" Limited 50th Anniversary Super Deluxe Edition) include a Blu-ray audio-disc (and NOT SACD!): that's not really up to date anymore, isn't it - especially since companies like Marantz or others don't even produce Blu-ray audio-players anymore. For example, I bought a good SACD player years ago, but never got into the Blu-ray audio business. How do you deal with that? (I'm also resisting buying a Blu-ray player for movies at all - you stream everything these days. I may be crazy, but I just don't get it.)
Thanks a lot!
Thank you Steve Guttenberg, you are a to go person for us Audioheads.the new term.those who want but can't afford in the latest audio mega universe. I appreciate your up to date information on all there is in the audio industry. Keep it going we love you.A well deserved topic for today and beyond. What did happen to the wars in this format.Thank you clearing the air on the hesitation of this format.Yes !!!!! And we love the systems of the day..
Keep it coming.!!!!!
So who wins a give away ?
Good piece. I have 45 + SACD classical from companies I have a Yamaha CD/SDVideo player that handles almost anything playing them - or one of the other 1,000 CDs. I can toggle ACD/PMC when I use the remote. SACD sounds different - I think beter.
Remember Quadraphonic (?) sound of the ‘70s. One had to sit in the exact middle of the circle formed by the four speakers to get the effect.
I had several reference systems with SACD/DVDAudio and the occasional HDCD….guess which format sounded consistently and demonstrably superior? HDCD! That was the way to go…cheaper and easily implemented.
Watch out for The STones sacds. They have to be gold and in a digipak. They actually put out the silver ones in jewel cases and advertised them as the sacd when they were just the regular cd, rather than change the packaging.
Somewhat ironically, the DSD masters for The Stones SACDs have been used to make new vinyl LP versions again. I’ve got a Stones LP with ‘DSD remastering’ on the packaging.
Chill. Peace. #1 reason I watch is because I like Steve.
Thanks!!
for surround, i found that DynaQuad, devised by David Hafler, extracts the ambience from the out of phase material in the difference between left and right channels. ALL formats respond well to it, radio, tv, dvd, LP, CD, SACD, or whatever stereo source you put through it. studio stereo recordings can be quite subtle but LIVE recordings sound LIVE and music like that of Isao Tomita. SQ and QS recordings sound pretty good as well. things only occur in the rear when they belong there.
an excellent example of a live recording that is spectacular in DynaQuad is On the Night by Dire Straits. from the time that the pot opens, the recording is electrifying. you probably know this but Dolby Pro Logic is based on the Hafler circuit with logic steering enhancement. the way i adjust the DynaQuad unit is to play a regular studio stereo recording so that the rear channels are barely detectable, then Tomita and LIVE recordings really sound natural. the big test is when you return to stereo and the rear channels go away and the soundfield collapses to the front; it's dramatic.
i agree that CBS/SONY really dropped the ball with SACD and also those that marketed DVDA. with SACD they could have marketed them two ways in a retail store. a special rack where only the SACD product, both single layer and hybrid would exist. AND in the regular stereo mix of CDs, the hybrids could have been populated without fear of selling a disc that couldn't be played in a conventional cd player.
i did my best to support sacd because i wanted it to survive but the lack of CBS/SONY's support squelched that. it's possible that they were afraid of such a perfect sounding recording that piracy wouldn't have required sophisticated equipment to bypass the copy protection in digital. an analog transfer would have done the job.
...hifitommy
My first foray into audiophile territory was in early 2000 and I bought Sony's first SACD player and had some Paradigm Studio reference speakers and a $3000 Denon AVR. I had a Celine Dion SACD that was digital recorded and mastered and it was insanely detailed. I had a Sting album mixed in DTS that was great cause they had backing vocals in the surround channels. I'm hoping music in Dolby Atmos takes off.
There are lots and lots of boutique audiophile grade classical music recorded in high definition. My own label 'Base2 Music' specialises in organ and classical and all recordings are made at 192 and 384, in 5.1 surround and Stereo and all available on pristine SACD discs. SACD is the disc of choice for Classical music listeners.
Giles Martin gets it. The Beatles albums he has done so far, are AMAZING! Also, the INXS surround he did, is also very well done.
You forgot to mention that the latest Giles beatles remasters have been compressed and time corrected what nots. The original cds sounds better as they are not compressed and eq'd
@@takeiteasy6154 I think the Giles Martin remasters sound FANTASTIC, as well as the 2009's. The original CD's from the 80's are lifeless and quite frankly suck. Sold mine the moment the 2009 remasters were released.
@@djdac7451 Mate how do you not hear that they're awful? I worry some of you are in the wrong hobby.
Hi Steve. Great topic as always . I’m an avid fan of multichannel music just as much as stereo (both analog and digital). I still have my collections of both SACD’s and DVD audios and a few DTS surround music CD’s. I do stream music on TIDAL and Apple Music and have a decent collection of vinyl. You need to check out the new format for multichannel , immersive audio in Dolby Atmos. They’re mostly sampled at 48/24 and are available in TIDAL and Apple Music. As of now, there are so many titles that are available to stream. You do have to own an Apple Music 4K steaming box to be able to listen to them over HDMI but they’re amazingly good. The engineers that have mixed them have done such a great job to make the experience truly immersive . Better than most SACD’s I’ve owned . Highly recommended.
I still like SACD, a fantastic SACD is Grace Mayha, Last Live at DUG Tokyo. Just an incredible album. There is not one song on there that is not listenable, this little gal really rocks the house. And to play those SACD's, I use my old OPPO BDP-83 and strip the DSD signal out of the recording via HDMI that runs through the GeerFab Digital Break Out Box that sends that signal via S/PDIF to my Denafrips Ares II DAC, to the Denafrips Hades preamp and out to their Thallo amp, which feeds my KLH Model 5's. Also two SVS SB3000 subs in the mix. The soundstage is incredible, the instruments are very well detailed and separated. And the vocals, especially the female voice, in a good recording is simply incredible. And that is one thing about that GeerFab box, it makes everything sound so much cleaner and more detailed, as long as it is a decent recording. It will not fix crap, crap in, crap out.
Surround sound? I ripped out the HT and went back to two channel. Movies today are crap, and my current listening position does not play well with surround. I will stick with what few SACDs we have out here, and this setup simply makes everything sound better, win win!
What if they had a (format) war and nobody showed up?
Or think of those who got into DAT... and then that ship sunk faster than the Titanic. Or how about the DAT vs. DCC format war that didn't even make it to having a first battle?
The 70s power wars have already been fought
@@TheDanEdwards I’m still loving DAT. I have a pair of Sony PCM-7010F units which I use these days to edit sound effects recorded in the field to a Sony D7 DAT Recorder. In a word the sounds are lifelike.
@@TheDanEdwards SACD v DVD-A
@@chrisguygeezer The SACD flag is still flying high. Its latest victory? It outlasted the iPod.
The heck..... Thank you so much for that introduction to steve wilson... The moment i played luminol track i was surrounded with music (and that piano🥹). It was ethereal.
I have a DTS audio recording of Ten Sumners Tales by Sting. Absolutely love it in 5.1. I struggled to find any other recordings like this. Does anyone know where I can pick them up in 2022?
Quick note on hi quality streaming, a couple of stations “ Hi on Line Radio” and “Lynn” both out of Europe both stream for free at 24bit x 192khz constantly. They both have several music categories to chose from and sound way better then what I can from my CDs (my player may need upgraded) and better than most of what I can get out of Tidal. Other than going to your computer if you have a Yamaha receiver you can find then under Net Radio and go to hi quality stations where there are many others, some of them don’t sound as good as these.
I purchased a 2 channel SACD player last year for the classical discs, my UK living space being barely big enough to listen in stereo, which is why I think surround sound will not take off here. I have a quad vinyl pressing of Tubular Bells, although I have never heard that mix.
Some years ago Deezer intended 44.1/16 for in-car (BMW) streams.. couldnt test it at the time dont know if it is still a thing.
Love it!! So refreshing to listen to you, also not sounding like-i-know-it-all-audiophile. Stay safe!
Thank you for sharing your thoughts about this. Now, I understand how the SACD, DVD-Audio, DSD fiasco played out. I loosely attempted to prepare for this. What a fruitless effort it was. I GAVE UP without nearly no money spent on upgrades.
I was SO excited when SACDs came out. I bought a high-end Sony ES player. I remember scouring the Tower Records shelves for SACD titles. Many titles were just single-layer SACD, which was SO stupid!!! Why would I pay $25 for a disc that I could only play on ONE of my 4 CD players?? (2 home + 2 cars). THEN... like Steve mentioned, the Stones titles WERE SACDs, but I was afraid to buy one because it did not say SACD on the package. What if I bought it and it was an older CD-only version. The stupidity level was set to 11 for the SACD rollout.
Thanks for the informative format discussion Steve! I never owned any SACD or DVD-audio due to lack of content however I did own some Grateful Dead disc from the early 2000's that were HDCD. What was the deal with HDCD disc's? Was it superior to CD or just snake oil?
I remember buying several CDs which were mastered using the HDCD mastering process, some of them definitely sounded smoother but any more detail(?) I couldn’t say they were. (I had a HDCD compatible player)
@@joepostle3561 HDCD is still available from Reference Recordings. Their hybrid SACDs' CD compatible layer is HDCD-encoded.
HDCD were 18-bit rather than 16, if you had a compatible player. I have some King Crimson, Joni Mitchell, & Bryan Ferry that sounded superb for their time, and have aged pretty well.
@danny tse funnily enough I was looking at their website last week at their latest releases. Generally, a consistent label for sound quality and dynamics, of course the management are some of the names behind the HDCD technology.
Just a few comments re Dvda, sacd and surround music.
Dvda and sacd were trying to do several things at once, failing at most for the masses.
They wanted to be hi res 2ch for audiophiles, multichannel music for the hot 5.1 home theater market of the early 2000s as DVD video took off, with most movies having 5.1 tracks that often sounded good in surround. Yes, not all were demo quality but I believe far more movies had good , sometimes great, surround soundtracks. Blu-ray solidified video surround audio with lossless 5.1-7.1
IMO, the surround music niche is fulfilled by concert, live performance dvd and Blu-ray. Yes there are gimmicky stinkers, but also a large number of outstanding live performance surround music video discs, with many throwing in a lossless 2ch track for purists.
Assuming higher than 16/44 res is technically or sonically needed for even audiophiles, it’s an even harder sell for the masses weaned on lossy compressed and dynamic range compressed music the past 2+ decades
Dvda fumbled for audiophiles by adding audible watermarks to the mlp encoded hi res tracks, destroying any value to audiophiles.
Dvd video discs could always do lossless 24/96 2ch and lossless 48khz multichannel, or high bitrate lossy Dts multichannel, and Dts CDs could do 1.5kbps lossy multichannel, basically more like flac lossless, so Dvda was never needed other than to collect mlp license fees
Sacd similarly tried to recoup fees from expired pcm and cd patents with dsd and the sacd disc format
Technical arguments might be made that 1 bit 2.8mhz dsd sampling might improve time domain sound quality vs 16/44 pcm, but I’ll let tech geeks argue that one
Both new sacd and Dvda discs are still produced and released, usually new transfers and remixed from source tapes by the Steve Wilson’s of the world as mentioned . And now we have BluRay discs that supercede DVDA for audio-only and music videos/concerts
Not a Bad thing when done right, especially if you like good 5.1+ mixes, live performance or not, and get a true 24 bit transfer off original tapes
It's because you cannot edit or do any processing in DSD. So mist new digital is done in PCM. Once in PCM, there is practically no point in going up to DSD because it had to be DSD from the recording to mixing and mastering.
I don't own a surround system myself but 2 or 3 of my friends do, they're not audiophile types - - the thing is, I NEVER hear them playing music in surround - - I guess I need to ask them why - - and yeah, generally, if there actually is music going, it's coming from the front speakers with the volume turned down, basically it's there for mood purposes and background, it's rare anyone even mentions what tune is playing - - - hmmm - - 🤔 - - actually I'd bet that the surround set ups are used more when they watch movies than listening to music.
You make great points, but to suggest classical music enthusiasts mostly listed on Bluetooth speakers and in the car, that's so not true. Added to that, many hundreds of classical issues are issued on hybrid SACD/CD format. In fact ALL of the BIS titles are issued on that format. Classical music fans DO care about the quality of the recorded sound.
Last I checked, in calendar year 2020, BIS was the most active label for classical music SACDs in the world.
I love SACD and Hi Rez streams, own an sizable catalog, but i could care less if it comes with a Multi channel mix. IMHO, the barrier is cost. Most HT receivers have music listening as an afterthought. A lot are about rumbling the room with an explosion than accurately recreating the impact of a kick drum. Take $3k which is a lot of money for most people. Invest it in quality AVR, Speaker package, and Multi disc player capable of both Blue-ray and SACD playback. Take the same amount and invest in a integrated\ 2 channel receiver, a pair of towers or sub\satellite, and SACD capable CD player. Compare the sound quality of the two. IMHO you will always get more out of that 2 channel rig than than the HT receiver trying to do double duty. A lot of people just do not have the resources and space to invest in a high end Multi channel rig and speakers. Asinine mixes aside, even with best engineering and mixing the industry just doesn't get that the investment in a dedicated multichannel music listening system is cost prohibitive.
Thank You Steve!
I feel blessed !!! I love the Porcupine Tree and other projects by Steven Wilson since mid 90s.
And I'm so lucky to enjoy his multichannel recordings!
But then came proper Athmos recordings and they are so much easier to enjoy!
The thing with stereo or quadro or 5.1, is that speakers placement and room size/distance between speakers play a huge role for the end result. With object based Athmos, receivers are reproducing the correct image (sound stage) much better with much less effort from user side. And honestly, most of us have movies setups, and all they need is decent receiver, three good speakers for the front and a decent sub (preferably two). The surround/height speakers can be kinda 'junk'.
Its really sad that there is almost no talking about multichannel. I guess most audiophiles are way to conservative to appreciate it.
Yes, I agree in lamenting why surround sound for music wasn't explored when the hardware finally caught up where it was now available to mainstream consumers. Quadraphonic of the early 70s wasn't ready for prime time. I remember experimenting with L-R set ups I learned from my EE uncle in the 1970s while in junior high school. As an adult, I tried Hughes SRS, their phantom surround. But Dolby Pro-Logic really made a big step. In car audio, we have always had multi-speaker front/rear/sub configurations. Some of us had equipped the systems with digital delays for spacial expansion of the enclosed space. Dolby Digital, and later DTS both refined the surround experience until it was very satisfactory. Now with dsp and psycho-acoustics, the results are luscious. I recall owning a car stereo system from Sherwood with a DTS decoder for surround audio in the car. And a Carver Cathedral delay unit too. Most of my audio days and passion has cooled. Post-audiophile lifestyle now after a bad divorce where the ex-wife stole my system. She did leave behind my old AR speakers from 1982. Too old fashioned looking. But I no longer have a system to drive them. I do have some DTS coded music recordings, but no means to play them back. Maybe after Powerball some day, LOL! I wonder sometimes why we don't have these legacy and current dsp based digital surround systems released as software based encoding and decoding algorithms for our laptops and desktops. CPUs and GPUs are more than powerful enough to do all this on the fly today. It would be much cheaper for some of us budget audiophiles to tinker with and set up our systems. Video games already take advantage of HW in desktops for decades now.
As always lots of interesting stuff, I was on the buy an sacd player track but gave up after buying one cd that I could find, it mostly failed for lack of current content in my opinion
I think I hit the trifecta on this episode: a life long DIY recording engineer that listens to almost exclusively multichannel music on vintage (late 80s early 90s) Infinity Speakers. (I’m guessing that exec was a Harmon era Infinity CEO). Oh, and I listen to a lot of Classical music, acoustic instruments being the only non processed instruments by the way. Electric guitars are all heavily “processed”, before you even touch the string.
I even listen to vinyl on my Dolby Surround processor. So yes, all music. Stereo sounds dull and flat to me now, even on my own wonderful IRS Beta speakers, and all other stereo systems that I hear everyone else raving over. I’m 66, I don’t care at this point what anyone else likes.
I use my IRS Betas as both the fronts of my surround, and as my stereo system. Most audiophiles I’ve talked to have never heard surround presented on an audiophile system, of course they don’t like it. They listen on their cheap tv surround speakers; I get why, it’s expensive and you need a crazy large room. It’s impractical as hell. It’s worth it, to me, because it just sounds better.
You don't need a crazy large room; I have a carefully set up 5.2 system in a 14x13 foot room; works great with surround tracks/SACD and movies.
At 52 years old I finally managed to own a Sansui turntable and a Haman Karden 330a receiver . We always had good systems in our house growing up in the 70s which I wasn’t allowed to touch but nothing from Japan or Germany as my dad was a soldier in the war
I think I have only 4 or 5 SACD's, if that. The first time I saw SACD on the lable I had no clue what it was. The second format you mentioned, I have no clue if I have any. Oh well 🙄.
I remember my first set of speakers the Technics SB-L300 and they sounded very good, but something was missing when playing vocals. I went to a Lafayette store, and I heard these Sony SS-610 set and the vocals where perfect with good bass but muddy highs. I bought them and operated them in conjunction with the Technics and the combination of the two was VERY satisfying. So, when a friend wants me to recommend speakers, usually I recommend two pair of a different brand that when combined sounds great.
Steve, you're right about the highly compressed tracks you listen to that will never benefit from hi-res. However, in the smaller classical and jazz markets, there are many fine recordings coming out, some in surround, that are NOT compressed and eq'd for earbuds. Listen to nearly anything on Pentatone or BIS, for example. And BIS is still selling SACDs.
I listen to a lot of electronic/ambient music with a 4 channel speaker system and a Lyngdorf high end processor and it sounds great. Immersive music as it really should be heard.
The best show on the internet machine!
Thank you Steve, for another great Video! Especially your thoughts about the SACD and DVD Audio Formats are very interesting, and I agree with you. As I worked from 1980 more than 20 Years in the Audio Business as a Salesman I see the introduction of the CD and later than the introduction of SACD and DVD Audio. I never understand why the Industry don't support these Formats. I'm always been a Anolog Guy, so this don't bother me to much , but I think this was a wasted opportunity..
By the way Steve.. Are you in Germany at the Munich High-End Show next week?
Wish you all the best.
I lost in the BD/HD-DVD war when I bet on the wrong horse first. I still have those discs and several players before they departed to the realm of obscurity, but it very definitely sounds just like the SACD/DVD-A wars too
To state the obvious, when a company thinks about designing, altering, or presenting a speaker, the whole process is aimed directly at filling/capturing a segment of the market. An industrial designer may think about looks. An engineer may think about reducing resonance. Another engineer might think about cost. But most big speaker companies start with market segment and work from there.
Of course good companies find ways to produce high quality, innovative, beautiful, good sounding products within the constraints of running a business. Against our instincts, we have to give credit to companies like Apple and Bose for starting from the position of creating products based on a technology first and then selling that to a public that isn't already asking for it. I really don't like their products, but they're innovative in ways that most audiophile manufacturers are not.
But what gets a lot of audiophiles excited is largely not from large scale manufacturers anyway. We tend to think in terms of smaller scale craft production rather than mass production. Obviously again we use and buy what we can afford and I personally have always only used upscale mass market products. But we tend to focus on what is presented as "sound quality first" products. There are plenty of companies that aim directly at that market. But as Steve says, it's not a very large segment of the market, so those companies tend to be smaller. No longer are the Sonys, Yamahas, and Philipses of the world particularly interested in audiophiles like they were between 1960 and 1995. If you see something that attempts to be "the best audio quality" from a major manufacturer these days, it's likely more of a way for them to show off their technical abilities so they can sell more sound bars and car audio and Bluetooth earbuds, the way major car manufacturers have entries into the racing world. The connections between their high end and the bread and butter of their business is only in the marketing.
Sorry for the ramble here, but I kind of strayed from my original point. I think what most speaker makers are thinking about when designing or refining a speaker is how many of them can they sell. I think they probably hope that they can create a clear leader in a segment that will get a lot of positive buzz and hit a home run. I imagine companies dream of releasing the next KEF LS50 or Klipsch RP600M or Elac Debut. When KLH released the new Model 5 and it caught the imagination of the public they must have been filling hot tubs with Champaign because that's pretty much exactly what a company like that is trying to do - come out with a product that fills the needs of an eager market and develops a good reputation in that market. I think that is where most speaker companies start and stick with from the beginning to the end of the process. I think most of them are thinking, "Is this going to find an audience?" for the entire time they're developing a model.
That's my guess anyway.
Of course there are people who don't do that. There are, and bless them for being this way, people who will go out and just make something that grabs their own imagination and fulfills their own sense of what would be good and useful and pleasing. And then they do the best they can to satisfy their own sense of what would be a desirable piece of equipment. And then they just offer it to the public and hope that enough other people see the value and beauty of what they have created. That's the stuff that a lot of us really cherish. But unfortunately it's a limited business model and companies that do that rarely get very big. I think we don't realize how rare that really is. I think many companies like to present their offerings as if they are created that way. But the reality is, I believe, a lot more market driven than it appears to be on the surface.
Again, that's just my guess.
More good stuff from my audio guru!! I just wanted to thank you for your help and common sense approach to audio and I actually purchased the Outlaw Audio RR2160mkll due to your reviews on it. I absolutely LOVE it! There’s not much out there on this unit, but safe to say you nailed it! Thank you, thank you, thank you!
I do?! That’s awesome!
Loved the latest podcast. Interesting to hear your thoughts on another subject Steve. It was like a live story telling event.
Thanks, glad you enjoyed it
Dylan's then-current album 'Love And Theft' came out on SACD (it was about 18 months old).
Also: the DVD-A of 'American Beauty' sounds wildly better than the stereo original, I can't speak for any other GD remixed albums as I never heard them.
True, but I still wonder why it wasn’t released on SACD when the album initially came out? Remember at that time Sony was releasing lots of re-issue albums on SACD, so it wasn’t plant capacity.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac It was one of the 15 simultaneously released titles on SACD for Dylan (there was even a box to keep them in for the well-funded fan). Titles were chosen primarily for their 5.1 surround possibilities (but in the end not all were remixed). Only BoB had been released before that as a single-layer, stereo only.
Have you listened to any of the music Paul McGowan has been releasing from Octave Records?
I love the fact that Apple has heavily promoted Spatial Audio but as far as I can tell it's not lossless which is a huge bummer. To clarify I'm referring to Dolby Atmos played through the Apple TV 4K at 640kb. I'm hoping the next version of the Apple TV will remove this limitation.
There are lossless and even hi-res Spatial Audio tracks, but Spatial Audio only works on Apple earbuds and their expensive headphone.
@@poturbg8698 I meant the Dolby Atmos available through Apple Music which can play through the Apple TV 4K but only at 640kb. I'm hoping the next generation of the Apple TV will remedy this issue.
I wish I had 1/10th the knowledge you had ! Oh well. I'm glad you share your knowledge and expertise with the rest of us ! Thank you.
Being a new listener talking about multi channel I was hoping to hear what you think about ATMOS. My position is if you are going to have speakers over head there should be speakers under neath, too. Its just another new format to get people to spend ridiculous amounts of money.
Just use the Universal player Sony X-1100-ES, it plays "ALL" Hi-Res files and Discs in a superb Way (You can also use the Sony X-800-M)
After listening to 5.1 SACD going back to stereo is like going back to a Coke gone flat, no fizz. Today I enjoy 5.1 SACDs via an OPPO-205 to a Sony TA-P9000ES Analog Multi-Channel Preamplifier. I am also excited about Dolby ATMOS music from Apple Music but I do not yet have a means to it.
Very good. Your time in the business has been enviable. Love your stories. Keep them coming
Right on Brother. I’m 62 with a nice stereo and I’m a musician, and see most of these things in the same way you do. Is it our generation? Probably in part. But it’s not all of it. My brother (2 yrs younger) who’s also a musician, is squarely in the Engineer camp that you describe. The love of good sound. Innate? Learned? Both probably. I get it though.
So, "Octave Records" is one of these exceptions on the general rules?
I think they are, and they freely agree. Also, MA Recordings. These cater to the tiny market that is concerned with audiophile recording quality.
Yes, octave makes audiophile recordings
Thank God there are more exceptions. For people who take the time for it, there are quite a lot well recorded albums to find. But of course never enough.
@@SteveGuttenbergAudiophiliac Hi Steve, please check out Aeolus Music! They are still producing quality music and SACDs! By the way, your video, as always, very informative!
I totally agree that Sony and Warner dropped the ball on SACD and DVD Audio formats. The true creative potential of the media have barely been realized, particularly in the area of surround sound. Yet, I continue to support these hi-res formats, because in classical, jazz, and other acoustic genres they can provide a bit extra space, headroom, and detail. In the case of music using electronic instruments, where the performance is created mainly in a studio (with all the attendant post production tweaking, EQ, compression, etc), I'm not so sure the extra res is that necessary or even perceptible, though the multi channel possibilities could still be effective.
Having said all that, standard Red Book CDs played through a good outboard DAC can sound mighty impressive.
Used to be that it didn't matter so much how the speaker was "voiced". Most amps and receivers came with tone controls and you could more or less tailor the sound to what you wanted. Graphic equalizers were also seen as totally legit fifi components. Somewhere along the line the "minimal signal path" freaks gave the manufacturers permission to give you an off/on switch and a few input buttons.
Fascinating discussion. Do the Stones SACDs sound better than the previous CDs of the same albums? I wonder how something modern like Moby's Play album would sound on SACD? or Talking Head's Stop Making Sense?
Thanks, yes the stones SACDs sound better than the earlier generation CDs, which were awful!
A major obstacle to recording in DSD is that the DSD bitstream cannot be edited or mixed without being converted to PCM or analog, and then converted back to DSD. This is documented in various videos on the PS Audio and Octave Music channels.
Indeed, but a special PCM hi-res format (DxD) is used for editing DSD tracks before conversion back to DSD. It was especially developed by Philips to overcome this deficiency.
I think the barrier to SACD and DVDA was the requirement to buy new equipment....again. After abandoning vinyl, for 8-track, then cassettes, then CD's, surround was a very tough sell.
But every few years you'd change to a new smart phone that does essentially the same things as your previous phone. So what gives?
Love the two Dead albums in surround, brought serious clarity never even hinted at before. So many good surround discs, you are on a bummer trip sorry to say. B. Ferry, Roxy, Crimson, Floyd, ELP, Yes, Beatles, Lennon, Harrison, Heads, R.E.M. plus the old quad on SACD (which I am sure you dislike) such as Loggins and Messina, Earth, Wind, and Fire, Return to Forever. Miles Davis, Santana, and on and on. Lots of fun stuff. You are spreading yourself a bit thin by not going into enough details on these great surround discs. 25 min. is a long video for the content offered up here.
With regard to SACD recordings, I remember visiting Mark Levinson’s Red Rose Audio Salon where he was promoting SACD and actually made eight recordings in the his small audio salon that sounded to my ears as beyond belief. Unfortunately, DSD is really not catching on but I am finding so many PCM high-quality recordings that the need for DSD in my system is waning. Much of The recordings produced in DSD now are being released by mediocre composer/musicians which I have no need for. This could be the bigger problem for DSD technology. To this day I can’t figure out how Mark was able to record such fantastic music with famous musicians in his small store and get such remarkable sonics. Less than a year later, Mark Levinson showed up in my Holistic Pet Supply store and over the course of several months we became friends. He is one tough cookie who wants what he wants when he wants it and perhaps that’s why he has been a force to be reckoned with in the industry during his career in Audio.
Met him once, very impressive, nice bloke. Decades ago showing cello in Hilversum.
@@annebokma4637 Yes he does come off as a very impressive person. It’s called being a narcissist.
@@stimpy1226 yeah I heard the stories about that side. Luckely I met him once on best behaviour. I don't get along with most narcissist in a prolonged aquintance
@@annebokma4637 You don’t know the half of it. What went on between Mark Levinson needing my help was quite personal so I really can’t discuss what our business relationship that turned into a friendship was all about.
Still love the SACD format. The Stones albums sound very good on Sacd. Pity that they did'nt get on with it.
Thanks for this video . And it’s true we al want our records and our cds to sound the way we want them to sound , or the way we think it should sound in our system. Thanks
I bought the Jackson Brown on used vinyl for $5.00 and it sounds pretty good
I believe DSD was originally developed as an archive format for analog master tapes because it is (supposedly) as close to analog in terms of sound that a digital format can get. Might be why old analog albums are popular on SACD?
I think the titles being released on SACD has more to do with the demographics which have the disposable income to afford the hardware/software.
Thanks Steve, another video to peek my interest. 👍
About the SACD, DVD-audio (and for that matter, any TRUE digital audio format) the most distinguishing fact is that SACD versions are truly Hi-Res audio in the sense that they were produced from a super clean master (and not today's "remastered" scam versions there are in every online "hi-res" music platform) and correctly engineered after that (you know, no noisy tape hiss, plenty of room for dynamic range, crystal clear vocals, zero noise, etc), specially *JAPANESE* editions of SACDs.
Other than that, digital formats (when non-destructively compressing data) are just a mere way of packing the bits and obfuscating the musical info (i.e. if someone decides they want to lock you into his format by using some form of DRM).The final quality of digital output is exactly the same for any digital format, by definition.