SACD - MC vs. Stereo

I noticed a lot of talk on the boards recently about single layer SACD Stereo CDs. I can understand buying the 5.1 MC versions, but why buy the single layer Stereo versions? I can understand the collectibility issue, but that is a different issue altogether. I am just asking about the sound issue. Isn't the single layer Stereo version just the redbook version? I am not sure I understand why they were put on single layer SACDs. Seems like MC is the way to go.

 

There are some great stereo SACDs. Not all music lends itself well to multichannel sound. When it does, it's great. But when something that is not meant to be "surround" is fabricated into surround, most times it's better not heard at all.

Listen to some of the early Silverline "stunning" 5.1 DVD-As for many examples.

 

Steve,

I have both SACD versions of Tapestry, and the stereo mix on the 5.1 version sounds like a "remix" as opposed to a "fold down"

 

Perhaps I'm just misinterpreting what you wrote, but a single layer stereo SACD does NOT contain just the redbook version. It doesn't even contain a CD (redbook) layer; that's what makes it a single layer SACD as opposed to a stereo CD. So some people are interested in these discs because they frequently contain the best sounding digital version of the recordings in question.

As to why someone would want a stereo only SACD when a multichannel version of the same title is available, some of that is attributable to people being "collectors" but sometimes it's because the stereo programs on the two different discs are not the same. This is the case with the Carole King "Tapestry" SACD where the stereo only SACD contains the original mix and the stereo/multichannel SACD contains a stereo remix.

 

Good question. I'm going by my earballs as well as my eyeballs. Newer SACD credits "SACD Stereo Mix Produced by Bob Irwin" and "5.1 Surround Mix by Paul Kinberg at Glenwood Place Studios, Burbank, CA".

I'm with ya, the original stereo mix was OK by me.

 

Steve, is the "beloved original mix" on CD or just on the LP?

 

Maybe "just for kicks". I just compared a few tracks and decided the mixes are not drastically different. It's not like BI went in and moved instruments around the soundstage or moved things dramatically up or down in volume in relation to one other. Maybe the new mix is slightly more forward sounding, but I feel he tried to stay true to the original in many repects. A casual listener may not even hear a difference.

 

Huh? Is this a trick question? The higher resolution of SACD over CD has the potential for better sound. If you are not into surround sound (I am not), then these non-hybrid (a better term in my opinion) SACDs often provide the best digital reproduction of the title in question.

 

Thanks Steve.

OK, now to tie this into my original post. If the original Columbia CD of Tapestry and the Stereo SACD are the same, is there really a purpose to the SACD version? What I am driving at is SACD isn't really improving anything.

The main benefit seems to be it gives us a "backdoor" to buying an OOP CD pressing. Especially, if you can believe the earlier post that they put the best sounding pressings on the SACD Stereo CDs. Although that seems to be a stretch that Sony executives may have come up with that idea.

Seriously, comparing these 2 CDs (or many of the other stereo only SACD versions, i.e. Meatloaf's Bat out of Hell, Toto IV, etc.) it doesn't seem to me that SACD is really justified. I mean you wouldn't buy a SACD player for this reason alone? However, you need to have a SACD player if you want to hear these in 5.1.

 

Dunno. I'm not too intensely familiar with "Tapestry," but it isn't like the logic isn't there. Sometimes the old tapes are damaged, or not in great condition. Sometimes you have a good mix idea, but processing, etc. detracts from the impact.

 

First, see Metralla's post. It's resolution. Second I had the original CD and there is no comparison the SACD is better.

 

I and plenty others (many here) bought an SACD player for the enhanced resolution of the stereo sound over their redbook counterparts (as Geoff pointed out) and not for multichannel.

 

Not the same. Same mix, but not the same mastering.

 

I'm not multichannel and don't have plans to do it - 2 channels is hard enough to manage. I love 2 channel hi-res sound...

 

If this is a poll, I buy both DVD-As and SACDs for the surround-sound (or to get something new from Steve Hoffman). I bought a couple of the Stones SACDs out of curiosity but I mostly prefer the old European CDs and I bought the Cyndi Lauper stereo-only SACD to replace the horribly remastered redbook CD.

Other than that, it's the surround that grabbed me.

Back to Tapestry - I have the Mastersound Gold CD. It mentions reisuue producer: Bob Irwin, but it doesn't say if it's been remixed. It sounds pretty good, though.

 

Could it be they wanted to eliminate that one analog generation and mix directly to DSD?

I just do two-channel here also, no immediate plans for 5.1. I rarely sit in a "sweet spot" anymore, or listen through extension speakers outdoors or in other rooms. If I get surround it will be mainly for movies...5.1 for music will be a curiosity for me.

 

If you want a demo of what a stereo SACD does for you, get a good audio system, an SACD player, and Steve's "Bob James" SACD. Listen to in as a CD, get to know it, then play the SACD layer.

That's the difference. Higher resolution, natural sound.

Where's LeeS when we need him?

 

From what I remember the Mastersound gold CD was done before they found the real deal 2-track master tape. Story has it that it was found at producer Lou Adler's home around 1998.

 

And isn't what wags said true? I'm sure the remix was done on Tapestry because of the poor condition of the original 2ch mix tape. I really don't think you should poo-poo it, especially if you haven't even heard it.