 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They are significantly different in that the sample rate is much improved over the 16-bit 44.1kHz CD version. And usually SACDs (as of late) have been mixed in multichannel sound, so the 5.1 immersion makes the score sound fuller than traditional 2.0 mixes.
http://www.soundtrack.net/features/article/?id=185
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The SACD makes this brilliantly recorded score sound even fuller, edgier and more aggressive.
Besides having an SACD player, having a good set of speakers is also important, or else you really won't hear much difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the case of NEMESIS, it was recorded at DSD, so the SACD 2.0 actually is significantly better in quality than the CD. However your audio equipment is a significant variable at that point. If you have a cutting edge home theater system, it will probably sound just as good as it sounded at the mixing stage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
By cutting edge I assume you mean a sound system with a total worth of at least $5000?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don't listen to SACD's on a home theatre system.
Listen to the stereo layer on a good pair of speakers.
Multichannel SACD only really works if you have 5 identical high quality speakers, all positioned at exactly the same distance for the location were you are gonna listen to your music.
It's to much of a hassle.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The .1 channel seems to be used significantly differently on SACDs than any other format. You really do need all full-range speakers to appreciate them.
Not everybody will find it worth the effort, but if you're an audiophile, the differences are worth it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
May 31, 2006 - 11:51 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ed Kattak
(Member)
|
I disagree with the home theater assertion.
If you have assembled a "cheap" home theater system consisting of some all-in-one Sony system for $400, then I guess you get what you pay for.
When I scouted out my home theater components, I took great care in finding the best balance between music and movie reproduction. I avoided the THX rating completely, as I think that that many of those certified components are best suited for multichannel films. The THX rated speakers I had initially drove me crazy, as transients and high frequencies often sounded dull - compared the to non-THX rated Paradigm's that I have now.
For my ears, the difference between the the NEMESIS SACD on my cheap Sony home theater, THX rated multichannel Yamaha system, and non-THX multichannel Paradigm/Denon were quite dramatic.
1. The Sony was flat, dull, and had no sonic presence.
2. The Yamaha sounded dull, with a notceable lack of depth.
3. The Paradigm Denon sounded rich, full, and quite spacious. Playing the track titled A NEW ENDING was a real trip. When the STAR TREK THE MOTION PICTURE fanfare kicked in during the first full statement of the theme by the brass, I closed my eyes and felt like I was right on the scoring stage. The standard CD never sounded or felt like that. It's hard to articulate without hearing it firsthand, but it made for an amazing sound experience.
I have another SACD of THE POLICE - GREATEST HITS and the sound is phenomenal.
Oh well. Sorry to hear that you guys couldn't enjoy the difference.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
9-28-13: Let me resurrect this thread after more than 7 years and after reading so much lately about re-releases of music from the "Star Trek: TNG" series of films. I was the first of my friends to get into SACD and bought more than a hundred of them. And in a powerful, at the time 5.1, system, many of them sounded fantastic. I bought "Titanic," "E.T.," "Dances With Wolves," "Titanic" (also in dts audio), and a ton of film compilations, but mostly classical and a couple of operas. I also bought the "A Chorus Line" original Broadway cast, which is particularly effective in 5.1 multi-channel surround. But then the format lost its momentum and faded out, leaving some of us with remnants of a dying breed on our shelves and a lot of disappointment. And before I bought my latest Blu-ray player last year, I was horrified to discover that they weren't even including SACD as an option (so I've kept another -- Samsung -- Blu-ray player just to be able to continue playing the ones I have).
From the moment I saw the SACD of Goldsmith's soundtrack for "Star Trek: Nemesis" on the store shelf with its green graphics I was tempted to buy it. But when I had watched the movie I didn't hear much that made me want to spend the money on its music, way back when I was trying to be more sensible in my music-buying habits. And whether or not I would have been happy with the SACD, I guess the general reaction now would be "why bother?"
I never dreamed that SACD would so quickly follow quadraphonic and become the Edsel of recorded music. And I continue to grieve over it, although I must say that I'm glad to have those SACDs that I did buy back when some of us were so excited about it. If anyone bought "The Big Picture" with Erich Kunzel conducting soundtrack cues from films like "Dragonheart" and "Last of the Mohicans," they can probably understand why I was so knocked out when I first bought it in dts surround, and later greedily bought it when it was released on SACD, and it remains amazingly effective in 5.1 surround. But for how much longer?
Maybe I shouldn't have re-opened this after so many years. And I'm sure there's many out there who never held much hope for the format in the first place.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
And to Spymaster, love your profile and interests! A friend from here recently introduced me to the music from The Spymaster 007 spoof!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
