The Singles 1969-1973 on SACD

[Achim]

Hi folks,
I recently bought a SACD-Player which sounds great (depending on the software of course).
In 1995 when SACD was new the Carpenters "Singles 1969-73" came out in America in this format. Has anyone heard it and if so is there a noticeable difference to the remastered cd-versions ?
I think you can order the SACD via amazon or tower records but I don't want to pay an astronomic prize when the result in sound is poor or one cannot hear an improvement compared to the cd-remasters. I would appreciate if anyone could help me out with this question.
Thanx

Achim

 

[PJ]

Interesting- was unaware that this release existed , obviously Polygram / Universal are not promoting SACD ?

Is the sound that much better ? Are there other differences ?

Peter....intrigued.......

 

[Achim]

Interesting- was unaware that this release existed , obviously Polygram / Universal are not promoting SACD ?

Is the sound that much better ? Are there other differences ?

Peter....intrigued.......

At last Universal is promoting SACD with a few releases in pop/jazz with more to follow next year. As far as my experiences with this format are concerned there is an overall better sound with more depth and naturality to it of course depending on the quality of the original master tape. And it is of course depending on the equipment that you listen to. A bad recording indeed sounds bad no matter what format is used. I own two Billy Joel recordings on SACD which sound better than the remastered CD-versions. Some classic and jazz recordings on SACD are even breathtaking. But I must say that a real good recording/or remastering can sound nearly as good with CD but nowadays many producers don't care about a good sound at all nor do the artists as far as their contract allowes them to take decisions at all on that subject. The Carpenters SACD I never had the chance to listen to and it looks that it is deleted now. Maybe Universal will give it another try when their sales on SACD are satisfying for them. Let's hope!
Achim

 

[Harry]

With a little research, I see the title listed (but out-of-stock) as amazon, both US and UK. It appears to have been released back in 1995 when the SACD movement was trying to get started (has it yet?).

I'm going to guess that this title was deleted with all other versions back when the SINGLES 1969-1981 title replaced it in the general catalog.

Harry
...who doesn't want to have to spend thousands of dollars to hear an infinitesmal improvement in sound quality, online...

 

[davidgra]

There are a few problems with the timing on this SACD --

SACD-format players weren't sold to the public until 1998, so a release in 1995 doesn't make any sense.

Universal also has not been supporting the SACD format; their high-end audio releases have been in DTS Audio (which is a DVD-audio format, not compatible with SACD). SACD is a Sony format, only supported by a few of the record labels.

And while Amazon.com shows the Carpenters' SACD, I don't know of anyone who has ever actually seen one -- I suspect this is just some sort of error.

Having both an SACD player and a DVD-Audio player, I would LOVE to have a 5.1-channel mix of THE SINGLES: 1969-1973, but I've never been able to find one...

David

 

[Rudy]

SACD-format players weren't sold to the public until 1998, so a release in 1995 doesn't make any sense.

Plus, with so many other "audiophile" titles available, a reissue of Singles is highly unlikely.

Universal also has not been supporting the SACD format; their high-end audio releases have been in DTS Audio (which is a DVD-audio format, not compatible with SACD). SACD is a Sony format, only supported by a few of the record labels.

It does help that Sony owns one of the Big Five record labels. (Helps to be in both hardware and software.) Some of the audio press are claiming SACD is going to revolutionize the music format, but I doubt it, at least at this point. For the 5% of us who could hear a difference, there are the other 95% of Joe Sixpacks with their $30 Walkman or $40 boombox that will never hear a difference, or want to.

I did read, though, that future players will be able to play both SACD and DVD-Audio. Last thing we need is another AM stereo, VHS/Beta, DVD/Divx or DAT/DCC/MD fiasco...

I'll eventually get a player, but will wait until they're priced on par with existing CD players. The day I can buy a 300-SACD Pioneer changer for the same price I can buy a standard 300-CD player today is when I'll make the move.

-= N =-

 

[davidgra]

This whole thing about SACD vs DVD-A is *exactly* like the VHS/Betamax fiasco. Sony developed its own format, which is incompatible with the rival format...

If Sony were smart, they'd be giving away the SACD players. If everyone could play SACDs, they'd surely sell a lot more of them than if you have to buy a $300 player.

I'll admit, I love the SACD format (as well as the DVD-Audio format). I play Carole King's TAPESTRY on my SACD player all the time, and it sounds incredible. The Billy Joel titles on SACD are stunning as well.

But, of course, the DVD-Audio format will eventually win out, because DVD-Audio discs will play in many regular DVD players, and DVD-Audio players will also play DVD movies. Multi-functionality will win out in the end, I think.

David

 

[Murray]

Some of the audio press are claiming SACD is going to revolutionize the music format, but I doubt it, at least at this point. For the 5% of us who could hear a difference, there are the other 95% of Joe Sixpacks with their $30 Walkman or $40 boombox that will never hear a difference, or want to.

Are SACD discs backwards compatible with regular CD players (ie. will they play, just without the enhanced sound quality)? If not, I just can't see them ever really having mass market appeal. I listen to CDs in many different places: on my stereo system in the living room, a clock radio in the bedroom, computer in the basement, boombox in the garage, car stereo while on the road, and on a Walkman everywhere else. When I pay good money for a disc, I want to be able to play it anywhere, on all my hardware.

I have absolutely NO interest in DVD Audio at this time, since these discs definitely won't play in any CD hardware. I already have 2 DVD players, both less than a year old, and I can't justify or afford to replace them just to get DVD-A capability. Also, I like to listen to music with headphones, so what good is 5.1 surround sound if you are listening through two speakers?

Regular CDs already sound pretty darn good as it is. As I get older, my hearing is only going to get worse, so why should I want to invest a huge amount of money to get a small improvement in sound quality, if I won't be able to tell the difference in a few years anyway?

Murray
...who has already changed formats enough times...

 

[davidgra]

In answer to the question about backward compatibility, SACDs are not playable in regular CD players.

DVD-Audio discs ARE playable in regualr DVD players, however. You might not get the full functionality of the disc (i.e. the 5.1 channel mix), but you will get the superior 96kHz, 24-bit sound.

Back to SACD: There is a type of SACD that IS playable in a regular CD player -- a "hybrid" disc. It contains both the SACD-encoded material and the regular CD audio. I don't know of many titles that are hybrids, but I have one, Laura Nyro's ANGEL IN THE DARK from Rounder Records. You can play the full album in your regular CD player, or you can play the full album plus a bonus track in your SACD player, with the 5.1 channel mix.

I've read about 5-channel headphones that create a virtual center speaker and also contain front and rear left-and-right speakers, creating a depth in the sound like you get in a regular 5-channel setup. I'd have to hear them to be convinced about how well they work, though...

As a 5.1-channel convert, I will say that it doesn't take much of an ear to notice the difference between a two-dimensional stereo sound and a three-dimensional 5.1-channel sound -- instead of the sound coming at you, the sound literally surrounds you. It's quite amazing!

David

 

[Harry]

I truly enjoy 5.1 channel sound when watching DVD/LD movies, but tend to agree with Rudy and Murray regarding audio CDs. The best part about CDs, along with the decent noise-free sound that they can provide, is their portability. A large amount of my listening these days is done in the car, so paying extra for an enhanced surround-sound disc that won't work there is just not in the cards. That's not to say that I wouldn't ever buy one of these discs. I've already got two surround sound audio discs: one is Herb Alpert's DTS version of PASSION DANCE, and the other is The Corrs IN BLUE in DVD-Audio. Both play in my DVD player, and sound really nifty as long as I'm locked into my center seat position in that room. But I only do that on rare occasions, and really only do it as a novelty to show off the surround sound system. Most regular CDs, sound OK through the Pro-Logic setup which moves the extreme left-right stuff to the rear speakers and the main subject to the center channel, but really sound best when just using straight two-channel stereo.

Harry
..who remembers going through similar discussions in the 70s when "quad" was all the rage, online...

 

[Rudy]

Are SACD discs backwards compatible with regular CD players (ie. will they play, just without the enhanced sound quality)?

Newer SACD discs are hybrids with dual layers. They have a layer with standard CD 44.1kHz/16bit audio that should play in all CD players, and a second layer that the SACD player would read. With hybrids, the system stands a chance of gaining wider adoption, since the labels only have to manufacture one CD. I believe some labels have already dropped the price on some of their SACD titles to make them more appealing.

5.1 surround is just a gimmick for music listening. The electronics companies obviously don't remember quadrophonic sound in the 70's, and its eventual failure from having too many incompatible formats, and the general public's disinterest in something that was basically nothing more than a curiosity that required new equipment to play.

Surround is fine for movies, in those rare moments I have time to watch them, but it seem irrelevant when playing music on the boom box...

-= N =-