Sacd And Quality Of Cd Layer On Discs.

[Mike Kakay]

Just interested as to where this notion comes from?

For ages I've been told and seen written all over the traps, that the CD layer on DSOTM SACD is really crap, on purpose so to speak, to show off the SACD mix.

I have listened hard and cant really attest to this doctrine. I find the CD layer completely resolves the album in the same high standard as the SACD mix does, albeit being obviously a lesser fidelity simply because of the 16 bit-44.1khz nature of CD structure.

I point to this review as further evidence of a completely acceptable CD layer on the disc- Pink Floyd - ‘Dark Side of the Moon’

This Super Audio CD is a hybrid disc, meaning it will play on either a SACD player, or a conventional CD player, although you’ll only get the multi-channel and higher resolution from a Super Audio CD player. I took the time to compare them, and found that the disc, when played as a CD, takes the two-channel track to a new level as well. The fidelity of the disc, even from a CD player, was still decidedly better than the Mobile Fidelity disc. The hybrid disc also carries a two-channel DSD track. The two-channel version boasts the same outstanding resolution of the multi-channel layer, but the focus of this review is the 5.1 mix, since that is the truly novel feature of this disc.

So what gives?

[OakenShield1]

I agree, a perfect example is Dire Straits SACD. I have listened to the CD layer of this and find it absolutely fantastic. Obviously not as good as the SACD layer but far superior to my old Dire Straits CD.

[Mike Kakay]

I agree, a perfect example is Dire Straits SACD. I have listened to the CD layer of this and find it absolutely fantastic. Obviously not as good as the SACD layer but far superior to my old Dire Straits CD.

I have both the same as you, and the CD layer on the SACD is way better than the stabdard CD release. Its also HDCD if you can decode that.

[OakenShield1]

I have both the same as you, and the CD layer on the SACD is way better than the stabdard CD release. Its also HDCD if you can decode that.

Ooh, didn't know that, that explains why it does sound so much better than the standard release...

[Skid_MacMarx]

sorry Mike, I've only compared the US sa-cd CD layer of Diana Kralls Look of love with the Australian CD and found the SA-CD CD layer SQ was superior.. apparently they use a technique called SBM Direct on most of the hybrids.. bringing the CD layer up to HDCD standards.

As has been repeatedly stated and proven over and over again, both the 2ch and 5.1 mixes on the DSOTM SACD were taken from the original analog tapes, and kept completely in the analog domain until the DSD transfer was done.

Guthrie even built some plate reverb units so he wouldn't have to run the tapes through a digital reverb. All of this has been documented in REAL pro (and consumer) audio magazines, . . .

[Mr.Bitey]

Also probably because they re-cut the redbook cd version from the cleaned up master they were using for the SACD mix.. thats my take on it anyway

Bitey

[MELso]

DSOTM is actually pretty bad on the CD layer of the SACD. Lots of compression is evident if you listen through good quality cans, and it sounds really harsh. The 20th Anniversary Edition is a much better example of DSOTM on Red Book...

[Mr.Bitey]

I guess it depends if the layer is seperate or just uses part of the disc - looking at them, it looks like its a part of the same layer - I suppose i could go look in wikipedia but ive used all my energy tryping this reply

Bitey

[Skid_MacMarx]

DSOTM is actually pretty bad on the CD layer of the SACD. Lots of compression is evident if you listen through good quality cans, and it sounds really harsh. The 20th Anniversary Edition is a much better example of DSOTM on Red Book...

Yes, a lot of people have said this.. ie previous CD releases of DSoTM sounded better than the CD layer of the DSoTM SA-CD

thats why I tried to find how the CD layer came about

I only listen to the HD DSD stereo program:

I have only compared the HD DSD stereo programme with the 1979 Stereo MFSL Half Speed Master Lp.

and, have not compared thethis SACD version with the 1994 PCM remaster RBCD nor original PCM master for RBCD..

So I cannot make any comparisons here with the previous CD releases nor surround vs. quad mix.

There is a bit of controversy out there regarding the source of the stereo program... many people have reported that there is little difference between the earlier CD, and many have not acknowledged which previous version they have compared it to.

My question is Did the stereo HD and CD layer programmes originate from the original analog stereo master or from one of the PCM masters

At worst they have sourced it from the first 80s PCM master

At best it may have been sourced from the 1994 PCM remaster

Ideally it did come from the original analog master

If it was only a "DSD remaster" from the original analog master i gather unlike the surround mix: PCM would not have been involved.....

Regardless I personally prefer the SACD version over the above MFSL release..

http://www.sa-cd.net/showreviews/771

[Dlite1503559993]

I find the CD layers on SACD's to be excellent.

Generally the masters used to produce SACD's are normally higher quality recordings already that is why they are selected for SACD, that means the CD layer is normally better than normal quality CD anyway as it is based on an exceptional recording. Alternatively often the tracks are remastered for SACD and the CD layer benefits as well if they use the same remaster. However I expect sometimes the CD layer does not contain the freshly remastered versions of the tracks on the SACD layer so they will sound different and often inferior to the SACD layer in this case.

Personally, I prefer playing the CD layer on most SACD's because the SACD playback on my Denon 2900 is mediocre, and my CD/FLAC playback equipment is much better quality.

Michael

[Skid_MacMarx]

I find the CD layers on SACD's to be excellent.

yes, hat has been my experience as well

[Widescream1503559516]

Me too..

[Guest JohnA]

i have a patricia barber sacd and the cd layer is crap.

We compared it to the cd only version and the cd version was just as good as the sacd version, but on the same disc, the cd layer was alot worse

[Neon Kitten]

i have a patricia barber sacd and the cd layer is crap.

We compared it to the cd only version and the cd version was just as good as the sacd version, but on the same disc, the cd layer was alot worse

Worse in what way?

Bear in mind that the CD layer on a hybrid SACD is functionally identical to a "real" CD. It is fully Redbook compliant, and has no quality issues at all.

As someone earlier in this thread's pointed out correctly, though, different masters are often used for SACD hybrid CD layers, usually because a superior (or just newer) remaster has been done of the stereo source.

[Guest JohnA]

the cd layer of the sacd, had over bloated bass and nowere near the same dynamics in mid and upper fequencies.

It was night and day difference.

I purchased another of her SACD's which i also have a cd copy off, haven't played the sacd, cd layer of that one yet to compare, but will do so soon and report back

[Mike Kakay]

DSOTM is actually pretty bad on the CD layer of the SACD. Lots of compression is evident if you listen through good quality cans, and it sounds really harsh. The 20th Anniversary Edition is a much better example of DSOTM on Red Book...

Yes, a lot of people have said this.. ie previous CD releases of DSoTM sounded better than the CD layer of the DSoTM SA-CD

thats why I tried to find how the CD layer came about

I only listen to the HD DSD stereo program:

http://www.sa-cd.net/showreviews/771

The 20th Anniversary Edition- So is this the one to get?

I want to come to the bottom of this by playing both IMO above average system.

[Adinfinitum]

DSOTM is actually pretty bad on the CD layer of the SACD. Lots of compression is evident if you listen through good quality cans, and it sounds really harsh. The 20th Anniversary Edition is a much better example of DSOTM on Red Book...

I'm with you. I have an early 1990 redbook release that is very ordinary, the 20th ann edition that I believe is the best, the 30th ann SACD Hybrid that I find the CD layer highly compressed and loses some of the magic of the album, and also the MoFi gold edition - that I think is underrated and one of my fav CD versions next to the 20th ann boxed edition.

Incidently, I also have the 30th ann edition on vinyl and that was a real dissapointment compared to every other record of DSOTM I've heard.

Do I have too many copies???

[Mike Kakay]

In summary then, I would probably rank the different versions in the following order (from best to worst):

- DSD 5.1 on SACD (for the additional clarity, extended bass, but I wish the surround mix was more faithful to the Quad version)

- Quad LP (listened in stereo) (for the most relaxed and well articulated presentation, plus a killer soundstage and virtual surround imaging)

- CD layer on Hybrid SACD (I'm scoring this high mainly because it sounded the most "relaxed" compared to all the other CD versions)

- Japanese Gold CD (slightly flawed by today's standards but still holds up well)

- DSD stereo on SACD (this is a controversial rating since it mostly sounded better than all the other CD versions but I am marking it down because of the heavy and ponderous bass)

- dts 5.1 CD-R (gives a hint as to what the Quad mix is like)

- original CD version (last and very definitely least, it confirms every prejudice against CDs)

So according to Christine Tham, the CD layer on Hybrid SACD is the one.

[Adinfinitum]

So according to Christine Tham, the CD layer on Hybrid SACD is the one.

I personally think that 5.1 mix of any music is a highly subjective opinion - more so than usual. I've listened to the 5.1 and although interesting and a bit of fun, a good stereo mix is still the best sound for me. It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. It really changes the presentation.

I also think the quad LP ranked 2nd is by far and away the best I've heard (in stereo). Unfortunately I don't have a copy of this

[Mike Kakay]

Can you still get this 20th anniversary edition?

Can someone give a catalogue number/studio label for this disc so I get the right one.

I'm going to get this and see hear for myself!

Thanks.

[Adinfinitum]

Can you still get this 20th anniversary edition?

I did see one or two when surfing Amazon about 2 months back, but I can't recall if that was new or used. Can't help with catalogue number at present sorry - at work.

[mello yello]

Can you still get this 20th anniversary edition?

Can someone give a catalogue number/studio label for this disc so I get the right one.

I'm going to get this and see hear for myself!

Thanks.

Mike I think its the

30th Anniversary edition EMI 7243 5821362

never heard of a 20th anniversary edition

btw a question Ive been meaning to ask ....can you get just SACD only or are they ALL hybrid?

[Skid_MacMarx]

I personally think that 5.1 mix of any music is a highly subjective opinion - more so than usual. I've listened to the 5.1 and although interesting and a bit of fun, a good stereo mix is still the best sound for me. It's a bit like comparing apples and oranges. It really changes the presentation.

I also think the quad LP ranked 2nd is by far and away the best I've heard (in stereo). Unfortunately I don't have a copy of this

what did you think of stereo HD DSD program (there are three different programs on the hybrid; CD layer, HD stereo & HD 5.1) compared to the 20 ann RBCD..

(Unlike DVD-A, the stereo mix is separate to the Multi-ch mix)

you must be a real PF/ DSoTM fan!

Mike, depends if you have a SA-CD player or not...

[Mike Kakay]

Mike I think its the

30th Anniversary edition EMI 7243 5821362

never heard of a 20th anniversary edition

btw a question Ive been meaning to ask ....can you get just SACD only or are they ALL hybrid?

Beer Budget and surroundfan seem to think theres a 20th? Me personally, I dont know.

The SACD is the 30th anni release with 3 mixes 5.1 DSD, 2.0 DSD, 2.0 RBCD. Thats the only SACD as far as I am aware.

Mike, depends if you have a SA-CD player or not...

Been listening to this with a marantz with SACD for a number of years. I have always played the CD layer in my CD player also, and could never understand why alot of people think its a shite RBCD production. Hence this topic.

[Neon Kitten]

Beer Budget and surroundfan seem to think theres a 20th? Me personally, I dont know.

There was - I have one here - but it's long deleted. It came in a cardboard box rather than a jewel case.

I think its sound quality is superior to both the SACD and Redbook stereo remasters on the 30th Anniversary SACD release, but not for the reasons you'd think.

Quite simply, I think the older disc sounds better because the stereo master tape was in far better condition ten years earlier. In the intervening decade it seems to have been damaged through over-use or poor storage; dropouts and other anomalies are there which didn't exist on older releases.