Skip to main content

I just did, and it sounded pretty damn good. Good fat low end, sick definition and imaging, highs that don't hurt. Who else has heard one of these things?

Comments

Don Grossinger Fri, 11/07/2003 - 06:56

I've heard & worked with the format. I agree!! Boy, what a listening treat!!

The Rolling Stones SACDs are wonderful. You must check out Ya Yas, B Banquet, Let It Bleed at the very least.

The Dylan series is also really great. Blood on the Tracks, Blonde on Blonde: wow!

I hope the Beatles catalog is treated to this remastering process.

If we're really lucky, perhaps new stuff will be recorded & released this way as well and not subject to the level wars we all dislike so much.

Great audio rules!

sserendipity Fri, 11/07/2003 - 08:26

Check this out:

[="http://reviews.cnet…"]Pioneer DV-563A
[/]
[[url=http://[/URL]="http://reviews.cnet…"]Prices[/]="http://reviews.cnet…"]Prices[/]

SACD for under $200!!!

I'm not suggesting that you are getting a fantastic peice of gear - Pioneer sells themselves sell a ~$1,000 version of the same player with better components, but everyone seems pleased with this unit.

[ November 07, 2003, 03:54 PM: Message edited by: Jonathan El-Bizri ]

anonymous Fri, 11/07/2003 - 10:49

great. i'm glad the big ears guys agree. I listened to Begggars Banquet and Blood on the Tracks. I've never heard "You cant always get what you want" sound like that - the subtle gtr/piano riffs buried in the middle, the hand percussion frenzy - charlie's drum fills - bananas! Here's another question - I haven't heard the new DVD audio format. Has anyone been able to A/B SACD and DVD audio? Is DVD audio the same concept as SACD? Do they sound the same?

Don Grossinger Fri, 11/07/2003 - 11:13

I think it's currently impossible to do an A/B test as nothing has been released on both SACD & DVD-A yet. Everything's one or the other.

I have listened to a few DVD-A discs as well: Dead's Workingman's & American Beauty & Steely Dan's last new CD. The instruments sound really good. The mixes sounded wierd in surround. The Dan had rhythm guitar coming from the left rear channel and other mix oddities. That is not the fault of the format though. The Dylan SACDsin surround are done with more subtlty- rears are not full of instruments, just ambience I think. Folks just have to decide how best to use the capabilities. I'm just not used to being in the middle of the band- maybe it's me?

Both formats are high bitrate high definition capable & both sound great. SACD at first did not do surround, they both do now. It just depends what record company puts out the product. Sony products do not support anything but SACD.

Listening to the SACD masters of the Stones in the studio off the hard drive was quite a revilation. I am very familiar with those records: I grew up on them. I heard instruments & textures that I had never heard before.

sserendipity Fri, 11/07/2003 - 15:41

Originally posted by Joe Lambert:
SACD is a great sounding format. We have worked on a few titles here. The real benefits come when DSD is used from recording through to the end process.

But also if you have good anolog mixes and then remaster through DVD it sounds great. I haven't heard the Stones discs yet but I'm looking forward to it.

Are you opining that an all DSD signal chain would be >even< better than one captured with quality analog gear?