Thread: from the Elusive Disc email: list of Universal SACDs going out of print:

Posts: 41
Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Post by mandel March 22, 2006 (21 of 41)
Edvin said:

I think the best is to create a "room" for the music. Different rooms for different music. You don´t have a guitar behind you, not even if you are in a band, other than visually.
Some years ago a friend of mine had microphones in his hat during a Rolling Stones concert. A small problem, there was a second stage, a smaller one with no sound systems which the group used for or or two songs only. So, when everyone turned their heads towards the small stage my friend continued to look at the stage from where the sound came in order to recieve the best possible sound. But the artists where not there and it made a funny sight.

Mono is not bad.

This is getting away from what I was originally trying to say, but anyway...
There are other ways to use surround, it doesn't always need to be 70's style ping-pong surround. Neither is the 'lets shove a load of reverb in the rear of 3 channel stereo mix' approach any good. For me, what works best depends largely on the style of music. Pink Floyd or other psychedelic/prog music begs to have a really agressive mix, at the other end of the spectrum lighter sounding music needs the focus to be at the front with the rears used for quieter backing parts and to add some body/ambience.

Mono blows goats.

Post by DSD March 23, 2006 (22 of 41)
mandel said:

This is getting away from what I was originally trying to say, but anyway...
There are other ways to use surround, it doesn't always need to be 70's style ping-pong surround. Neither is the 'lets shove a load of reverb in the rear of 3 channel stereo mix' approach any good. For me, what works best depends largely on the style of music. Pink Floyd or other psychedelic/prog music begs to have a really agressive mix, at the other end of the spectrum lighter sounding music needs the focus to be at the front with the rears used for quieter backing parts and to add some body/ambience.

Mono blows goats.

It's not 70's style ping-pong surround but Pop/Rock style ping-pong surround. Most classical music released during the Quadraphonic era used the rears for ambiance only. If you can find them check out some of the Classical pre-recorded 4 Channel 4 Track Reel to Reel tapes. Some of them have been re-issued on SACD including the PentaTone Classics from Philips Quadraphonic master tapes and they are not ping-pong surround but use the rears for ambiance.

Ping-pong is a Pop/Rock thing not a 70's thing!

Also what does "Mono blows goats" mean?

Teresa

Post by mandel March 23, 2006 (23 of 41)
DSD said:

It's not 70's style ping-pong surround but Pop/Rock style ping-pong surround. Most classical music released during the Quadraphonic era used the rears for ambiance only. If you can find them check out some of the Classical pre-recorded 4 Channel 4 Track Reel to Reel tapes. Some of them have been re-issued on SACD including the PentaTone Classics from Philips Quadraphonic master tapes and they are not ping-pong surround but use the rears for ambiance.

Ping-pong is a Pop/Rock thing not a 70's thing!

Also what does "Mono blows goats" mean?

Teresa

I was refering to pop/rock not classical, and a lot of 70's pop/rock quad releases tended to mix into all 4 corners equally (partially because of the limitations of the SQ/QS matrix formats) whereas more recent efforts tend to be a bit more restrained or go for a 'wide stereo' approach (listen to the Paranoid or DSOTM quad mix and compare them to newer releases like the DSOTM SACD). It does seem like a fair number of the 70's quad recordings spread the orchestra into all 4 speakers, the EMI SQ records I have seem to do that as do the Silverline re-releases of old Vanguard recordings.

Post by Jan March 24, 2006 (24 of 41)
Today, I bought the Mercury/Starker/Schumann Cello Concerto at the rather modest price of 149 SEK. In Sweden the Mercury SACDs usually cost over 200 SEK (fullprice). Compare that to the Living Stereo SACDs at midprice, 109 SEK. Since the "Byron Janis plays Moussorgsky" also had this lower price, I bought that one too.

Later, at home I started to compare:

http://www.mercurylivingpresence.com/

and

http://www.deccaclassics.com/music/sacd/index.asp#releases

, and not all were present at the DECCA site. Does anyone know if they have ever been there, and if they now have been removed. My guess is that the following five Living Presence titles are going out of print:

Schumann / Lalo: Cello Concertos
475 6621 2 MSA

Moussorgsky: Pictures at an Exhibition
Chopin: Etude in F major • Waltz in A minor
475 6620 5 MSA

Music of Leroy Anderson
475 6942 8 MSA

Berlioz: Symphonie Fantastique
475 6622 9 MSA

Tchaikovsky: Nutcracker/ Serenade for Strings
475 6623 6 MSA2

It is not entirely logical since the Jensen/Vivaldi is still at the Decca site, although "DSD" wrote that it will be going out of print. But then again, Gergiev/Berlioz, is not to be found at the Decca site.

Post by Nightingale March 31, 2006 (25 of 41)
Edvin said:

I fail to see what the problem is. If you listen to older pop music on sacd in two channel the gain is minimal. I am not sure there is any gain at all after listening to some Creedence, Alan Parsons...If you listen in surround the gain is..? Hearing a guitar behind you. In what way does that enhance your listening experience? It reminds me of the mid-sixties stereo when you could hear the voices in one speaker and the band in the other, ie The Beatles Rubber Soul and The Hollies Evolution.

With great anticipation I bought Elton John´s Tumbleweed Connection and after listening to it once I am so grateful that I still own the first rbcd on DJM. A favorite track is Madman Across the Water, an early take lasting almost nine minutes. Mick Ronson´s guitar solo wanders from one speaker to the other all the time and listening to this guitar carousel is annoying, to say the least.

This is how pop and rock music is produced in surround sound. Why should anyone be interested in this ?

I love surround sound in classical music, but for pop music it is crap. Almost, since the remix done by Pete Townshend of "Tommy" is marvellous in 5.1. As always it is a question of taste versus effect.

You don't like pop and rock music, that's all. What about Karajan recorded in 1963? Rolling Stones SACDs sound much better than RBCD. And The Who.

Post by Beagle March 31, 2006 (26 of 41)
mandel said:
... blows goats.

To paraphrase The Eagles: Haven't heard that expression here since 1965.... Where did you go to school?

Post by Edvin March 31, 2006 (27 of 41)
Nightingale said:

You don't like pop and rock music, that's all. What about Karajan recorded in 1963? Rolling Stones SACDs sound much better than RBCD. And The Who.

I don´t? That´s news to me. Karajan recorded in 1963 is in two channels only, the Beethoven set. Rolling Stones are in stereo only as is My Generation by The Who. Most of the Dylan series are in stereo, and as I said, Tommy is excellent in surround. So Nightingale, what do you mean?

Post by Claude March 31, 2006 (28 of 41)
"Rolling Stones SACDs sound much better than RBCD. And The Who."

When you are comparing different remasterings, it obvious that there are huge differences in sound. You'll have to compare the Rolling Stones SACD to the new CD versions (using the same DSD mastering) to hear the improvement that hirez brings to these recordings.

The Who have also been remastered (and some albums like Tommy have even been remixed), so testing the SACD against an older CD release is not really a SACD-CD comparision, but more of a mastering/mixing comparision.

Post by Daland March 31, 2006 (29 of 41)
Claude said:

When you are comparing different remasterings, it obvious that there are huge differences in sound. You'll have to compare the Rolling Stones SACD to the new CD versions (using the same DSD mastering) to hear the improvement that hirez brings to these recordings.

The Who have also been remastered (and some albums like Tommy have even been remixed), so testing the SACD against an older CD release is not really a SACD-CD comparision, but more of a mastering/mixing comparision.

I have compared a number of Rolling Stones redbook and SACD versions based on the same mastering. The difference is considerable: voices are more natural, there is much more detail and added presence, a greater sense of space. In fact, you can walk around or sit in front of a loudspeaker and still easily locate each voice and instrument. This is not the case when you listen to the redbook version.

To claim that a redbook CD can sound as good as an SACD is sheer nonsense - no matter how often you repeat it.

I recently bought a redbook CD - the first in a long time - featuring the tenor Rolando Villazon. The singing was brilliant, but after a while I just didn't want to listen to it any longer. I found the "flat", one-dimensional sound, the digital edge to the voice and the lack of transparency simply unbearable.

Post by Claude March 31, 2006 (30 of 41)
Daland, I didn't say SACDs aren't better than CDs. I'm just warning against conclusions from comparisions involving SACDs and CDs with different mastering.

Page: prev 1 2 3 4 5 next

Closed