Highway 61 Revisited SACD: How did they get it to sound so good?

Hi,

I'm surprised this concept doesn't receive more attention on this and all comparable threads. IMO, SACD is a far superior format thus there is something inferior w/ the mastering and/or source of an SACD that isn't superior, or at least equal, to it's DCC counterpart. Going further, SH's DCC mastering and/or source selection must be far superior to compensate for the inferior format and yet produce a superior product. IMO, Relaxin' is an excellent example of this scenario.

Take care,
Jeffrey

 

Jeffery, I confess to having read your post four times and still not having any idea as to your point. But as far as I know this is not a SACD vs. redbook discussion. In fact, you are quoting Metralla who was quoting czeskleba who hasn't even heard the new Sony release. And my comments have referred to the redbook layer only.

 

Steve told us he used a stereo tube tape player, a tube pre-amp direct to analog to digital conversion.

Sony Music brags they installed the latest high tech analog tape recorders and boards to master the SACD's. I assume this was all solid state.

That alone could account for any sonic differences. I played this for my kids and they (and I) have a preference for the DCC release, but both are close and way better than the previous CD release.

Richard.

 

When this first came out a friend in High School thought he was saying, "once upon a time, you threw the bums a pie...."

 

Hi Ron,

IMO, it's kinda hard to discuss the thread title and original post comparing the SACD vs. DCC Highway 61 without having an "SACD vs. redbook discussion".

Take care,
Jeffrey

 

rontokyo,

It's really hard to remember that you joined in a discussion on the Highway 61 SACD and provided your impressions, and then said:

You'll have to forgive us for forgetting. You are right - I was referring to something czeskleba wrote as a response to what you had said. And you were referring to the "Redbook" layer!

No wonder that one became twisted. This is a SACD vs. redbook discussion. Your comments, while interesting, were slightly off the subject at hand.

 

Hi Geoff. As regards SACD vs. redbook, while Sam's original post made reference to the SACD layer, there is nothing that he or others have said so far regarding the merits of the SACD that do not apply to the redbook layer as well. The mastering is, after all, the same. [Larry mentioned the SACD sounds as if a layer of murk had been removed--my thoughts exactly re: the redbook layer.] Maybe I inadvertently hijacked this thread, but I believe difference between the DCC and new Sony are attributable to both mastering techniques and technology employed.

And speaking of technology. . . . I'd forgotten about the tubed gear Steve used in the chain. That would certainly account for the warmth of the DCC. I'd sure like to know more about Sony's gear, though.

 

Hi again guys,

I am enjoying reading all of the comments so far. More participation from lurkers out there please

I definitely do not want a generic redbook vs. SACD debate to come out of this. If you feel DSD is what accounts for the differences, then please let your opinion be heard! If you think its tube gear vs. modern solid-state, c'mon with it! If you feel it's a light touch of the EQ, tell me about it! If it's something different......please post

 

Phew! I really didn't think your original comments were aimed at a SACD vs. redbook discussion, but I'm relieved to hear you confirm that, Sam. And like you, I'm kind of scratching my head myself at the minimal participation from forum members, particularly from well-respected long-time members. Next to the Beatles, Dylan discussions would have to rate #2 on this board in terms of past participation. And as Highway 61 rates as one of the greatest [if not *the* greatest] LP released during the 60s, well. . . .

Steve has remastered hundreds of titles. When comparisons are available, his remasters *always* come out on top. That's one hell of a batting average. But in the case of H61 I'm afraid that someone else--to my ears, in my opinion--has done it better. And like you, Sam, I'm real curious to know what contributed to two *very* different versions of this title. No mere EQing [IMO] could possibly account for the inner detail I'm hearing on the Sony. I'd be great if Steve himself would chime in here and add insight as to the choices he made for the DCC *and* offer up some thoughts as regards what Greg Calbi *might* have done to coax additional detail from almost 40-year-old tapes.

 

In the past it was and still is to a degree tube warmth and distortion = more pleasant "musical" (there I go again) sound to the human ear vs colder more analytical & audibly detailed solid state sound. Maybe with the improvement in A/D & D/A converters the digital sound is becoming "less hard and cold". I wonder if the Redbook in this case is "down converted" from the master used for digital archiving and producing the SACD.

 

This may be true. In addition to the Dylan titles, I personally think the recent Simon & Garfunkel remasters sound wonderful. And the Vic Anesini remastered Blood, Sweat & Tears s/t rates as one of my all-time favorites. The point is, it would appear that Sony must be doing something right on the technical end of things--I think we tend to overlook that in our discussions of the merits/demerits of the engineer involved with the project.