TalkAwhile - The Folk Corporation Forum

ATTENTION ALL AUDIOPHILES:

From Eastwind Imports:

Universal Japan is releasing the fourth set (11 titles) of SHM-SACDs in Japan on November 24, 2010. SHM-SACDs stand for Super High Material Super-Audio CDs. They are single-layer, stereo-only SACDs pressed on special SHM discs utilizing high-quality polycarbonate material originally developed for LCD panels for the ultimate audiophile experience. They are NOT hybrid SACDs. They do NOT contain any multi-channel tracks. They require an SACD player and will NOT play on regular CD players.
 
This series of limited-edition SHM-SACDs will use the most recent DSD masters available to Universal Japan, and in some cases, brand-new DSD masters are created from analog master tapes.
Based on our past experience, this limited-edition series will quickly sell out, and once they are out of print, they will be available only at premium prices. So we are offering our valued customers a chance to secure their copies by pre-ordering. Eastwind Import has no plan to stock them, except for a few copies each of the jazz titles.


Rock/Pops
UIGY-9048 FREE/FIRE AND WATER/ISLAND
UIGY-9049 TRAFFIC/JOHN BARLAYCORN MUST DIE/ISLAND
UIGY-9050 FAIRPORT CONVENTION/LIEGE & LIEF/ISLAND
UIGY-9051 STEWART, ROD/GASOLINE ALLEY/MERCURY
UIGY-9052 JOHN, ELTON/GOODBYE YELLOW BRICK ROAD/MERCURY

Shipping and handling charges for US customers
$5.00 for the first CD
+$1.95 for each additional CD
 
Shipping and handling charges for Non-US customers including Canada
$9.00 for the first CD
+$2.50 for each additional CD

 

How much?

cant wait to get another copy to add to my original lp, the island masters re-issue lp, the 1st cd the island remsaters cd and the double cd
so much new music

Unfortunately this board seems to censor out the word that summarises that sentence.

Brilliant! Thank goodness they are "stereo-only".

Sorry I forgot to include the price from Eastwind imports, which is $50.  This is the fourth set so there arfe quite a few titles available.  I hope we can be assured that the disc will be sourced from the original masters.

BTW, I thought those original Island Masters CD's sounded awful.  Nothing I've heard to date beats the sound of a decent analog set-up.  I love vinyl but I couldn't resist this issue as the vinyl is probably sourced from a second or third generation master.

er, no, thanks.  :D

You mean, all that fuss over the materials for a digital recording, while the source itself is uncertain?

Sorry I misspoke.  Universal is using the first generation masters as a source.  Who knows what was used on previously issued versions?

BTW, how many of us have SACD capability?  Many Sony BD players have this feature.  I have the OPPO BDP-83SE Nuforce Edition universal player which I primarily use for blue ray video.

What is a first generation master?

For a start the original mixing tape will almost certainly have been rented, so will no longer exist. The master tape will have been a stereo mix of that, with all sorts of processing done to it, most likely recorded using Dolby A. That is the 'mastered' tape, from which dies are made to press albums. (Incidentally magnetic tape is actually more digital than analogue.)

The quality of 1970s master tapes is not even close to that of a CD. Also a CD well exceeds the specification of human hearing and a few theoretical limits for sound reproduction. SACD is the equivelent of watching old TV programmes on an HD TV, when your eyesight isn't that great either.

I think the clue to this exercise being totally pointless, is when they start saying that the type of plastic the disc is made of, can have an effect on the sound.

I actually get really pissed off with the constant (and as Colin says, pointless) rehashing / re-releasing /re-revenue-streaming of old recordings. There have been exceptions, the Beatles mono remasters being marginally worthwhile, but, having heard several SACD versions of old albums, the only one I ever found worthwhile (and kept) was the 5.1 SACD remix of Dark Side Of The Moon. And that plays on ordinary CD players as well.

its cocaine for people with ears so good they could eat them

This takes me back over 40 years when a neighbour had a new sound system. The suppliers measured the room, checked the construction/materials of walls floors carpets curtains furniture shelving etc. All he ever played on it was James Last LPs.  

Good points about the whereabouts of the original masters, would they have raided the Universal/Island vaults for the tapes ? As Colin says, the tapes may have been rented/re-used. Surely only John Wood or Joe Boyd and the guy who did the most recent remasters know which tapes are as close to the source material as possible, and it's doubtful whether or not they would've been consulted for this edition, or the original tapes used.
Another point, of course, is that while Liege & Lief is a wonderful album, it's not the most sonically exciting in the world, so how many more details can possibly be brought to the surface with another remaster ? It might be suggested that the current edition of L&L doesn't really need to be improved upon, and is readily available at a decent and fair price.

A friend of mine bought the mono Beatles box from Ebay. It looked perfect, sounded perfect. It was a Chinese counterfeit and every CD was the stereo version. ;D
(He got his money back.)

Oh dear ! I'm scared of James Last !

Can you expand on that Colin ?

Bit off topic.
The tape is made up of magnetic particles which altough randomly orientated and positioned are discrete blocks of information, what you hear is the average (with all sorts of corrections to improve matters).

I would like to hear Liege & Lief with drums re-recorded by DM now - that would be quite something 8)

Ooh, no.  I really dislike people fiddling about with history like that.

Jules

Compare and contrast this product with the version of L & L set for release in the new Sandy Denny box set.  Is there any reason to have both?

Me too, DM's drumming is just fine as it is on L&L. Reminds me of when Sharon Osbourne ordered Lee Kerslake's drumming and Bob Daisley's bass to be re-recorded on the master tapes by Mike Bordin and Robert Trujillo on Ozzy's first two solo albums. This was apparently due to the Osbournes being fed up with the number of lawsuits against them from Kerslake and Daisley, and so to cut off their stream of royalties from those recordings, re-wrote history and had their parts replaced by the rhythm section from Ozzy's then current band. Apparently, those albums are now being reissued with the original musicians intact as the dispute has now been settled.

Thirded. Much as I love DM's drumming & I do big time, he seems not to be as inventive these days as he was when he was finding his feet in '69 - '70. So, bring him a little further forward in the mix, but otherwise, leave as is.

Redbook CD (16/44) at the limits of human hearing?!!!  Laughable.

Presumably the Sandy set won't include the instrumental jigs and reels.

Jules

I've an Alesis Masterlink, the difference between 44.1k 16 bit and 96k 24 bit recordings is obvious, even to my knackered ears.

What I meant is that I can easily hear the difference between redbook CD and high resolution formats both sourced from the original analog masters.  Increasing word lengths/sampling rates makes a big difference on PCM digital.  SACD uses DSD processing which is altogether different from PCM.  It is true that on paper the redbook standard covers the limits of human hearing, but within that range high resolution formats have much better inner detailing, soundstaging and dynamics (PRAT; pace, rhythm and timing).

Goaty, thanks for backing me up!

No, I prefer both the sound and the heavyness of his playing now, but that's just me ;)

One could technically argue that if you were present at Cropredy 2007 for the Friday night Fairport '69 reunion, you've already heard L&L with DM playing the album the way he would play it now !   ;)

I must listen to that show again.  That was such an emotional gig!

Jules

I would suggest that the discs are mastered with different listening environments in mind and that is the difference.

If you master a CD with a wide dynamic range and 'detail' it will sound very different from one with radio plays in mind. You can't have both.

Exactly what part of the CD Redbook specification is 'laughable'? And what features of a 70s tape recording will it fail to reproduce?

That rings a bell. It reminds me of my student days when I used to take gig photos and sell them to local papers. I had to become very adept at controlling the 'hardness' or contrast of each print. Prints I did for myself were vastly different to prints I did for newspapers. Newspapers couldn't cope with the big dynamic range (white-to-black) that you'd expect to see in a framed photo - they tended to resolve faces into white blobs on a black background with no definition inbetween. So prints for papers had to be made deliberately soft (light grey-to-dark grey) in order look good on the page.

So yes, I can well believe that an audio mix made for one purpose would not sound the same as a mix made for another purpose.

Cheers

Nick

Colin, the redbook standard was developed 30 years ago and was a reflection of the technology circa 1980.  This is why an analog master does not sound the same in CD playback  From Soundstage:

Most modern recordings are made at bit depths greater than 16 and sample rates higher than 44.1kHz, and there is little doubt that such recordings sound better when played at those higher bit depths and sample rates than when downsampled to fit onto a CD. Music in better-than-CD resolution has been available for about a decade, but it is only with the adoption of computer-based audio that bit depth and sample rate have become divorced from any particular physical medium, offering greater choice for both content providers and consumers. As more record labels and websites offer high-resolution recordings, primarily through downloads, and more equipment manufacturers offer components capable of playing back hi-rez files, it’s time for us to consider the question of how much resolution is enough,

Liege & Lief was recorded a full 11 years before that.



Liege & Lief is not a modern recording. The idea of downsampling to fit onto a CD is irrelevant. This release is basically a case of digitising an existing analogue recording of unknown "quality". Irrespective of the chosen bit rate and depth the fidelity of the final recording is absolutely dependent on that original 41 year-old source.

Cheers

Nick

It was never a refection of the technology. The standard was set by looking at the theoretical limitations of analogue sound and exceeding them.
The very best modern mixing desks might just have an input dynamic range of 90dB, but any sound not generated purely electronically will be nothing like that. A CD is better than that (96dB). A recording from the 70s will be lucky to manage 60dB.
There's nothing you can do about that, or the fact that the frequency range will also have been limited to what was required.

And then there's your hearing range which from threshold of hearing in an anechoic chamber, to front row at a rock concert is about 85dB.

And what is your answer to the blatant codswallop about "...pressed on special SHM discs utilizing high-quality polycarbonate material originally developed for LCD panels for the ultimate audiophile experience".

and cue Dymphna out of ballykissangel
"its not just any remastered cd its a marks and spencer remastered cd"

or "if carlsberg remastered cds.......

"blatant codswallop", love it Colin ! Will the cd's be soaked overnight in swamp water to give them soul, and then cryogenically regenerated to improve the movement of the sonic particles ?

Mmm...maybe getting a bit over-excited about this...time for a brew !

Are the outer rims of these cds painted green?

Ah yes, I remember that one!

Early digital was a big step back in terms of sonic quality when compared to analog mastered vinyl.  CD 's were an improvement only in terms of convienence.  CD's sound vastly better today and the gap has narrowed significantly.  Don't go down that road comparing specifications such as dynamic range, the difference between redbook and DSD (SACD) is a wide chasm IMO.  Physical media as a deliverable is dying and high resolution downloads are the future among the audiophile community.

Which takes us neatly back to



 ;)

I've gotta second the phrase praise for "blatant codswallop"! ;D

Instant classic.

Although this release falls into the heading of physical media, it is not PCM digital but direct stream digital (i.e., SACD) and clearly falls into the category of high resolution.  DSD is not available as a downloadable format.  As a point of fact this relrease is unique in that it the only high res format available in physical media with the exception of blue ray audio-only which is a nacent format.

**** me, I listen to music, not run it through a spectrum analyser. If I wanted it to sound perfect I'd have to kill all other living things within 5 miles of my house so they couldn't make a noise, shoot down any planes daft enough to join the stack for Stansted and find some way of neutralising wind noise (probably cutting all the trees down would help). And then not breathe at all for the duration of each song. And stop my heart beating.

All of which would rather defeat the object.

 at least 50% of my listening is in the car with me singing along much to the irritation of any passengers. so non physical methods of delivery will have to fight with the 2 litre diesel engine, the road noise and sundry interruptions from the world outside

I would reckon that anybody who would be listening with ears that fearsome would not be listening to the music at all, but more likely be concentrating on trying to hear noises in the silence behind the music... :-\

That's very deep for a thursday evening, Jude!  ;)

I know. I frighten myself sometimes.... ;D

So what kind of mindblowing expanded extraextraextra-audiophile release will Liege & Lief have next year?
No, thank you. I'm not falling for this **** any more ...

I do not understand what all this is about.  Liege and Lief is what it is and of its time.  The quality of the muscianship and the songs cannot be improved upon by fiddling about with all this.  Leave it as it is!  >:(

For anyone to be able to take any serious advantage of this stuff, they would need to firstly concentrate on the most vital & expensive bit of hifi equipment.... the room they are listening in.

I live in a small house, which is incredibly cluttered. The living room is also quite small. My speakers, while as good as I'm likely to get for smallish ones (Mordaunt-short if you're interested) are not on nice expensive stands. They are on furniture on the left & a heap of boxes on the right & are too close to the corners for best sound. The room is full of books, CDs, pressed glass candlesticks & other stuff that Jilly collects & on top of that, it has an open plan staircase against the back wall.

When I listen to CDs, I either play them on the DVD player, or on the computer, both of which are fed through the hifi. I do not have surround sound. No room for it. Stereo will do.
Most of the time I listen to mp3s, as it's a heck of a lot easier to find stuff on the computer than amongst the boxes & boxes of CDs, which have the right-hand speaker stood on top of them anyway.

Buying this new format would be a much cheaper option that fixing all of the above, but then it wouldn't actually sound any better would it? LOL

I'm tempted to say "Right On" Big Dave. What you say make such common sense.

But there again, I'm one of those daft bu**ers who splashed loads of dosh on Beatles Vinyl, then tape, then CD and then Remastered...

For the record (no pun intended) I listen to most stuff on Mp3 via the computer. Except the Remastered of course, 'cos there would have been no point splashing the cash in the first place...

Out of interest, is there anywhere where one can listen to a sample of this SHM-SACD format, or would there be no point 'cos my speakers are different to yours... ?

Yes there is a wide chasm between the specifications, but CDs already exceed the theoretical limitations of recording by a huge margin (especially 1970s recording).

My contention is that the difference in specification between a CD and SACD will achieve nothing. The difference is that the SACD will have been mastered to sound best in an ideal listening environment, whereas the CD mastering will be a compromise.

I'm wondering if they put the same data on both layers of an SACD and then could you tell the difference when played on a CD or SACD player.

smoke and mirrors, smoke and mirrors
and people with too much money

With added clicks and pops???...      :-\

Jim you're a cynical bastard.

I've just replaced my speaker cables with ones made of oxide free, silver plated, unobtainium and bound in unicorn hair. I'm seeing a 61% improvement in my 'sonic quality'.

I'm waiting for the mkII's coming out in the new year.

Which is exactly why it would amuse me to have DM's current thundrous drum sound on a version of Liege & Lief ::) ::)

seeing 61%, but hearing how much?

It's amazing how many folks watch music these days on a computer screen rather than just listen to it, and love to brag or otherwise as to whether it's lossy or not, or at the right bitrate ::)

I stand by what I said.  Simon, Peggy, Swarb, Sandy and Richard did what they could with the technology of the day and it has stood the test of time. If I were Simon I would be offended at people trying to improve on L&L by messing about with the orginal recording.  

I doubt they are offended probably bemused at the gullibility of the purchaser. Really though people have been selling something to make music sound better ever since they started selling music, it's not surprising is it just rather strange.

I don't think it's that bad!  Nerds have always been nerdy about sound technology, even back in 1969.

Jules

I think that's maybe a tad simplistic... The original master tapes contain what they actually played, and I can't imagine that's being messed with.  The originals of those days were actually pretty decent quality because of the width of tape. Then you get the mix process... on the one hand yes, that was part of what they produced, but what they produced was intended to sound as good as possible not only on the big playback monitors, which incidentally aren't as good as modern ones, but also on scrotty little auratones so it would be good on the radio etc etc etc. And doubtless they made a whole lot of compromises in the mixing for all those different playback situations. If they'd been doing a mix just to be used on high quality kit (and dammit, I played my first Fairport albums on a ratty old mono autochange unit with an elliptical speaker which was all most of us teenagers had back then) then you can bet that the mix would have been significantly different and would much better relect what they'd actually played in the studio - and indeed heard in the studio for things they played more or less live... So all through the process after the original playing in the studio compomises had to be made and ultimate quality suffered... A really high quality mix for top kit will bring you an awful lot closer to what it was like to be in Sound techniques listening to them playing...

Yeah, but if you play a CD after it's been put in the freezer overnight it sounds ammaaaaazing...

Not to mention Ashley  ;)

what about DM?

I don't think sound recording technology has improved that much since 1969, it's just presented in a different way, and certainly sold in a different way. Back then you would have knowledgeable assistants in hi fi shops - what do they know in Richer Sounds???

A lot more than they do in Comet!!

Oh I don't know, Richer Sounds will happily sell you a bit of copper for £100 just as they will in Comet (gold plated HDMI lead - £90 ;D ;D ;D).  Anyway, hifi, as with so many things, is no longer about knowledge, quality & service, just bullshit & greed.

Has anyone actually heard a SACD disc or got a player that can play them? (I have to answer no to both questions) If the general answer is no isn't the present discussion about as fruitful as debating how many angels can stand on a pin head? If someone could answer yes could they shine some light upon the subject?

Yes, I got DSOTM on SACD out of curiosity as my bluray player also plays SACDs, couldn't tell any difference BUT it wasn't played on a dedicated SACD player, I CAN hear the difference between CD standard 44/16 and 96/24 though, assuming the source material is good enough.

Thanks. I suspect to notice the difference you have to spend on the player and given the likely downward trajectory of CDs (of all types) and growth of high quality downloads that spending more on hardware at present is not a wise way ahead.