Dylan SACDs

[gregk]

I just got Blonde on Blonde and Desire on SACD today, and so far the sound on Blonde on Blonde is revelatory!! The detail in the guitar strumming on Visions of Johanna is stunning. I was on the fence before but I am now starting to believe that SACDs really are that much better. Oh, by the way, I am ignoring the surround layer; I started to play the first tune in surround and it just didn't sound natural to me, so I went back to 2 channel

[gregk]

Originally posted by David Gitin
I got the whole Dylan box of SACD hybrids (don't have an SACD player), and even on my two channel system the sound is noticeably better.

I'm hoping they will do the SACD on New Morning and Hard Rain (there's not much else by Dylan I'm interested in outside of the 60s classics in this first series)

[gregk]

Originally posted by David Gitin
You're going to want BRINGING IT ALL BACK HOME, and if you relent and get into the seventies, BLOOD ON THE TRACKS and DESIRE.

Oh, I'm familiar with his catalog, I'm just talking about the SACD treatment (there was an interesting little mini-debate in a thread about Springsteen about Dylan involving myself; I still think Dylan's most essential works stop at 1975, but anyway..). I in fact have Desire and Blood on the Tracks on SACD, and Blood on the Tracks sounds great too (I haven't listened to Desire on SACD yet). The acoustic guitars sound like they are in the room with you. I really hope other artists/lables adopt SACD, at least based on these records. I'd love to hear Neil Young's, Springsteen's catalogs, and some labels like ECM which have great sound on CD, on SACD.

[gregk]

Originally posted by David Gitin
I'm with you on Neil, and I'll bet Dire Straits, Eric Clapton, Van Morrison would sound mighty fine.

Yep, I'm with you. The problem with Neil is, other than his odd reluctance to reissue his catalog with better sound, is that he is on a Warners label, which is pushing DVD-audio; he has actually said he prefers the sound of DVD-audio, which I doubt. SACD sounds closer to analog than DVD-A, and Neil is a definite analog guy.

[Lonson]

I've bought Planet Waves, which is a favorite of mine (I really like Dylan and the Band together). . . . I don't have an SACD player; the new remastering sounds pretty good on cd.

[Kevin Bresnahan]

Originally posted by gregk
Yep, I'm with you. The problem with Neil is, other than his odd reluctance to reissue his catalog with better sound, is that he is on a Warners label, which is pushing DVD-audio; he has actually said he prefers the sound of DVD-audio, which I doubt. SACD sounds closer to analog than DVD-A, and Neil is a definite analog guy.

Without getting into a big argument over each other's hearing, I think you should give the DVD-Audio disc of Neil Young's "Harvest" a spin before claiming that it's somehow inferior in this format. See if your local audio store has a demo copy around with a DVD-Audio player. To my ears, this is one of the best-sounding discs I own, on any format. They did an exceptional job with this disc. FWIW, it's a 192 kHz, 24 bit remaster... which is very high resolution.

I don't doubt for a minute that this would sound great in SACD but I just hate to see anyone avoid buying it because it's a DVD-Audio disc.

BTW, I think many vinyl fanatics would be all over your "SACD sounds closer to analog" statement. Many can't use "digital" and "good" in the same sentence. :D

Later,
Kevin

[gregk]

Originally posted by Kevin Bresnahan
Without getting into a big argument over each other's hearing, I think you should give the DVD-Audio disc of Neil Young's "Harvest" a spin before claiming that it's somehow inferior in this format. See if your local audio store has a demo copy around with a DVD-Audio player. To my ears, this is one of the best-sounding discs I own, on any format. They did an exceptional job with this disc. FWIW, it's a 192 kHz, 24 bit remaster... which is very high resolution.


Well, I would have to have a DVD-A player in order to get the full effect, wouldn't I? And I don't. Also, Harvest is one of Neil's weaker albums as far as I'm concerned; maybe I would be interested if they did the high-rez treatment of On the Beach or Time Fades Away, Tonight's the Night, Rust Never Sleeps, or any of his 90s records, I would be interested. Nope, I'm sticking with my original statements, thanks. And I am a vinyl guy, and I do like the sound of SACD

[JPW]

Originally posted by Kevin Bresnahan

BTW, I think many vinyl fanatics would be all over your "SACD sounds closer to analog" statement. Many can't use "digital" and "good" in the same sentence. :D
This is true, quite a few of my friends have digital only for background music and CDs of stuff they simply can't find on vinyl.
IME, SACD has a very hifi airy, spacy feel which I really don't like. I guess this is because most people who own SACDs are audiophiles who also like that "high-end" sound.
Ultimately it is very personal. I have a very good redbook player (IME) and no intention of changing it for SACD anytime soon or ever.
The next generation of high quality music delivery will have nothing to do with spinning silver discs. A lot of music is recorded direct to HD these days, and HD / Internet is the basis for future storage, delivery and playback systems.
In any case, Vintage Dylan or Neil Young is still going to sound best on... a good turntable. The software is also going to be cheaper :D
60s/70s rock, like classic Bluenote, simply comes alive through (good) analog in a way that has nothing to do with "blackness" "space" or "pinpoint imaging" IMHO.
All IMHO, IME etc.

[Greg]

The Dylans are great. Freewheelin is probably the cream of the crop, sonically speaking. Desire and JWH are on the other end of the spectrum of the ones I've heard, but even those are very nice on SACD. Overall, another killer batch representing a catalog segment that is considered one of the most important in pop music, now on hybrid SACD.

Which key catalog segment will fall next? Could it be Bob Marley? The Who (there is talk of that, and three titles already were released on SACD)? The Allman Bros (Eat a Peach, Live at Fillmore E are coming later this year)? More Pink Floyd? More Elton John? Maybe the Beatles?

Will Warner Bros start issuing SACDs under new ownership? Stay tuned.

[gregk]

Bad news. Looks like the Dylan hybrids are no more. Stores are carrying the redbook CD remasters only now, with the hybrids most likely being phased out. The CDs are lower priced than the hybrids, too. I'm barely keeping hope alive that Sony will continue the SACD remastering of the rest of Dylan's catalog, along with Springsteen and many other of their artists, but this is a bad sign

[Claude]

I am now starting to believe that SACDs really are that much better

Yes, but the redbook layer also sounds much better than the previous Dylan CDs. It's mainly the remastering that makes the difference.

I'm barely keeping hope alive that Sony will continue the SACD remastering of the rest of Dylan's catalog

"Live 1964, The Philharmonic Hall Concert", which was released a few months ago, is only available on CD, to the dissapointment of the SACD fans who thought Sony would continue to reissue hybrid SACDs.

One big problem with most Sony SACD reissues (not the Dylan hybrids) is that they usually cost 2 times (in Europe sometimes 3 times) more than the corresponding mid-priced remastered CDs, while the improvement in sound is only relevant for real audiophiles with very good equipment.

[Greg]

Yes, but the redbook layer also sounds much better than the previous Dylan CDs. It's mainly the remastering that makes the difference.

Everyone and their mother knows that remastering is critical. So is the original recording quality. So is the quality of the source material. All this is a given. Why the continual need to qualify the statement that SACD sounds better than CD? It does. Face it already.

"Live 1964, The Philharmonic Hall Concert", which was released a few months ago, is only available on CD, to the dissapointment of the SACD fans who thought Sony would continue to reissue hybrid SACDs.

Maybe Sony would continue to reissue hybrid SACDs if the folks who really enjoy improved sound would support the format.

One big problem with most Sony SACD reissues (not the Dylan hybrids) is that they usually cost 2 times (in Europe sometimes 3 times) more than the corresponding mid-priced remastered CDs, while the improvement in sound is only relevant for real audiophiles with very good equipment.

I can't speak to European prices, but in the U.S., this is complete bullshit. The Sony SACDs now cost up to $18.99 depending where you buy them. I can find them all at Fry's for $14.99. Often the CD versions cost nearly as much--I've certainly never seen them for $7.49. As for your claim about enjoying the sound, I have read scores of comments from SACD adopters with cheap ($250) SACD players who very much enjoy what they call an audible improvement over CD.

But hey, with all shrugging off of SACD's advantages by adopters like Claude who supposedly care about sound quality (but may actually care more about copying music than listening to it), no wonder the format has failed to take off in the way some of us hoped.