SACDs all have stereo?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

My impression is that all SACDs, including multichannel ones,
include a stereo mix. Is that correct?

Mike Prager
North Carolina, USA

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Mike Prager" <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote in message
news:cf843i0m4g@news4.newsguy.com...
> My impression is that all SACDs, including multichannel ones,
> include a stereo mix. Is that correct?
>
> Mike Prager
> North Carolina, USA

That is correct, unless the SACD is a mono SACD (rare, but some are).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:cf89a80ucn@news4.newsguy.com...
> On 9 Aug 2004 15:09:38 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:
>
> >My impression is that all SACDs, including multichannel ones,
> >include a stereo mix. Is that correct?
>
> Gee, Mike, how can you still ask this question? It has been asked
> and answered innumerable times on the Internet and embedded in
> every SACD announcement since the idea was born.
>

Easy, he never cared (nor do) I. If I bother acquiring any SACDs they will
most often be heard in my stereo set-up. I bought a "universal" player over
a month ago, took it out its box but haven't plugged it into the wall outlet
yet. Perhaps I'm waiting for dual layer SACDs prices to come down to
standard CD prices. I remember early Telarc CDs with about 30 minutes of
music retailing for $18.98. Lately the material from two Telarc discs
combined onto a single disc can often be found for $2.99 at the Berkshire
Record Outlet. There are so many great sounding performances in the various
2 channel formats (including LPs!), I can't see any real necessity for MC
material, all the more if your 2 channel rig offers better sound than a MC
system which shares room space with a big screen TV.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote in message
news:cfapnm0nf5@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:cf89a80ucn@news4.newsguy.com...
> > On 9 Aug 2004 15:09:38 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > >My impression is that all SACDs, including multichannel ones,
> > >include a stereo mix. Is that correct?
> >
> > Gee, Mike, how can you still ask this question? It has been asked
> > and answered innumerable times on the Internet and embedded in
> > every SACD announcement since the idea was born.
> >
>
> Easy, he never cared (nor do) I. If I bother acquiring any SACDs they will
> most often be heard in my stereo set-up. I bought a "universal" player
over
> a month ago, took it out its box but haven't plugged it into the wall
outlet
> yet. Perhaps I'm waiting for dual layer SACDs prices to come down to
> standard CD prices. I remember early Telarc CDs with about 30 minutes of
> music retailing for $18.98. Lately the material from two Telarc discs
> combined onto a single disc can often be found for $2.99 at the Berkshire
> Record Outlet. There are so many great sounding performances in the
various
> 2 channel formats (including LPs!), I can't see any real necessity for MC
> material, all the more if your 2 channel rig offers better sound than a MC
> system which shares room space with a big screen TV.

All this is true. That's why there are still a lot of 2-channel SACD
aficionados. However, if you can assemble a good five (or more) channel
system around your stereo rig, you are in for a whole new dimension in
reproduction of music...especially of classical symphony and live
concerts..but equally applicable to small ensembles, just not as dramatic.
Once you've experienced it, it is hard to go back.

I sat near the rear of Tanglewood's shed recently, with my eyes closed (as I
have almost always done at concerts, finding the visual distracting) and
listened to the BSO play Shostakovich's First Symphony and Emmanuel Ax play
one of Mozart's piano concertos (number 23 or 27, I believe). I was struck
how closely my Thiel-Audionics-ARC-Sony C222ES SACD system comes to
delivering that same "symphonic" sound on a well recorded multi-channel disk
in my own living room As good as many stereo disks sound, none can come
close to capturing that same "you are there" verisimilitude.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Thanks to all for the answers. Kal, Norm gave the answer to
why I didn't know already. But now that I've got a universal
player, I'd like to try SACD and see what the fuss is about.
However, I have no plans for multichannel any time soon.

Mike

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote in message
news:cfe9p602g3g@news2.newsguy.com...
> "Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
> news:cfbsd902teh@news1.newsguy.com...
> > "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote in message
> > news:cfapnm0nf5@news4.newsguy.com...
> > > "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> > > news:cf89a80ucn@news4.newsguy.com...
> > > > On 9 Aug 2004 15:09:38 GMT, Mike Prager <hifi@ec.rr.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >My impression is that all SACDs, including multichannel ones,
> > > > >include a stereo mix. Is that correct?
> > > >
> > > > Gee, Mike, how can you still ask this question? It has been asked
> > > > and answered innumerable times on the Internet and embedded in
> > > > every SACD announcement since the idea was born.
> > > >
> > >
> > > Easy, he never cared (nor do) I. If I bother acquiring any SACDs they
> will
> > > most often be heard in my stereo set-up. I bought a "universal" player
> > over
> > > a month ago, took it out its box but haven't plugged it into the wall
> > outlet
> > > yet. Perhaps I'm waiting for dual layer SACDs prices to come down to
> > > standard CD prices. I remember early Telarc CDs with about 30 minutes
of
> > > music retailing for $18.98. Lately the material from two Telarc discs
> > > combined onto a single disc can often be found for $2.99 at the
> Berkshire
> > > Record Outlet. There are so many great sounding performances in the
> > various
> > > 2 channel formats (including LPs!), I can't see any real necessity for
> MC
> > > material, all the more if your 2 channel rig offers better sound than
a
> MC
> > > system which shares room space with a big screen TV.
> >
> > All this is true. That's why there are still a lot of 2-channel SACD
> > aficionados. However, if you can assemble a good five (or more) channel
> > system around your stereo rig, you are in for a whole new dimension in
> > reproduction of music
>
> Putting high-end MC around a pair of Tympanis which dominate the room
> already, would be nuts. Putting high-end MC around a 60" rear projection
TV
> would also be nuts.
>

You actually are in luck, as Magnapan makes some very unobtrusive
wall-mounted surround panels, as well as a center-channel speaker (or use of
smaller Maggies). If you can live with Tympanis, all of this will seem
insignifcant.

> ....especially of classical symphony and live
> > concerts..but equally applicable to small ensembles, just not as
dramatic.
> > Once you've experienced it, it is hard to go back.
> >
> > I sat near the rear of Tanglewood's shed recently, with my eyes closed
(as
> I
> > have almost always done at concerts, finding the visual distracting) and
> > listened to the BSO play Shostakovich's First Symphony and Emmanuel Ax
> play
> > one of Mozart's piano concertos (number 23 or 27, I believe). I was
> struck
> > how closely my Thiel-Audionics-ARC-Sony C222ES SACD system comes to
> > delivering that same "symphonic" sound on a well recorded multi-channel
> disk
> > in my own living room As good as many stereo disks sound, none can come
> > close to capturing that same "you are there" verisimilitude.
>
> Been there done all that. IMO listening at home vs. listening live will
(and
> should) never be the same and it's not my goal to make them sound the
same.
> I know where my favorite hall seats are and at home I want my music to
sound
> just as the recording engineers got it down on the tape, and I know my
> favorite engineers. When in the hall I expect and want my music to sound
> differently than it does at home and vice versa. At home, I do not what
any
> diluting and distracting of the music quality provided by hall ambiance, I
> simply prefer my room ambiance. (I really do not prefer sitting at the
rear
> anywhere.)

With multichannel, you capture *exactly* what the engineers got down on
tape, which is a reasonable facsimile of sitting in a seat in the hall.
What's your beef?

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:cfeoir06gg@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 11 Aug 2004 23:23:18 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:
>
> >Putting high-end MC around a pair of Tympanis which dominate the room
> >already, would be nuts.
>
> Magnepan and AudioResearch did a dandy such arrangement at CES.
>
I would expect them to. Was their 20.1 front L & R?, still not as wide as a
Tympani. I don't see matching the output level of a Tympani to any surround
speaker, even theirs.

> >Putting high-end MC around a 60" rear projection TV
> >would also be nuts.
>
> That's why I got a plasma (although an FP would work, too).
>
Most everything is Full Screen for me, including cable (which seems to be
remaining so for a long time). I had "dish", but that was also FS (and low
def).

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

On 12 Aug 2004 23:18:44 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:

>"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
>news:cfeoir06gg@news3.newsguy.com...
>> On 11 Aug 2004 23:23:18 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >Putting high-end MC around a pair of Tympanis which dominate the room
>> >already, would be nuts.
>>
>> Magnepan and AudioResearch did a dandy such arrangement at CES.
>>
>I would expect them to. Was their 20.1 front L & R?, still not as wide as a
>Tympani. I don't see matching the output level of a Tympani to any surround
>speaker, even theirs.

IIRC, there were 20.1s for FL/FR/SL/SR and a pair(!) for center.

>> >Putting high-end MC around a 60" rear projection TV
>> >would also be nuts.
>>
>> That's why I got a plasma (although an FP would work, too).
>>
>Most everything is Full Screen for me, including cable (which seems to be
>remaining so for a long time). I had "dish", but that was also FS (and low
>def).

Sure.

Kal

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

Mike Prager wrote:

> Thanks to all for the answers. Kal, Norm gave the answer to
> why I didn't know already. But now that I've got a universal
> player, I'd like to try SACD and see what the fuss is about.
> However, I have no plans for multichannel any time soon.
>
> Mike
A word of advice: review the players carefully. Having heard all the
great raves about the Pioneer dv 563 player, I picked one up. Like you,
I was delving into the high definition digital audio medium for the 1st
time. I still have no DVD-As or SACDs. Buying the Pioneer gave me a
budget minded player with good reviews that does all three.

After a week of break-in and listening to just CDs, I came away a bit
disappointed. For CDs, the dv 563 seems to be just OK. Since 100% of my
digital audio collection was still CDs, I couldn't deal with that. I
plugged my old player back in, a Panasonic S-35 (junior to the highly
regarded S55 and I feel benefiting GREATLY from similar electronics to
the S55) and immediately felt pleasantly surrounded by good audio.

Looking back at the reviews for the DV 563, I see that they were highly
praising its SACD and DVDa capability whilst also saying that CD audio
was OK, albeit in an easily forgettable manner. Lesson learned.

CD

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
news:cfpb4t096n@news3.newsguy.com...
> On 12 Aug 2004 23:17:58 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:
>
> >"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
> >news:cfeoh806et@news3.newsguy.com...
> >
> >> With multichannel, you capture *exactly* what the engineers got down on
> >> tape, which is a reasonable facsimile of sitting in a seat in the hall.
> >> What's your beef?
> >
> >Its useless for my stereo library
>
> That's likie saying that CDs are useless for your turntable.
>
Sure, but not only my turntable also my preferred pre-amp, amp and speakers,
and "last but not least" my listening room!

> > and most often puts me in a seat that I
> >wouldn't have chosen.
>
> At least, it's a real seat on the better recordings. Besides, those
> RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence SACDs have the original
> 3channels!
>
Besides I've seen it written (on usenet) that 3 track MLP multi level
players will appear in the fall, along with such recordings (?) presumably
designed to play such recordings, so SACDs are not going to serve that
purpose at all.

Archived from groups: rec.audio.high-end (More info?)

"Norman Schwartz" <NSchwartz35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:cfrek402guk@news4.newsguy.com...
> "Kalman Rubinson" <kr4@nyu.edu> wrote in message
> news:cfpb4t096n@news3.newsguy.com...
> > On 12 Aug 2004 23:17:58 GMT, "Norman Schwartz" <nmsz1@att.net> wrote:
> >
> > >"Harry Lavo" <harry.lavo@rcn.com> wrote in message
> > >news:cfeoh806et@news3.newsguy.com...
> > >
> > >> With multichannel, you capture *exactly* what the engineers got down
on
> > >> tape, which is a reasonable facsimile of sitting in a seat in the
hall.
> > >> What's your beef?
> > >
> > >Its useless for my stereo library
> >
> > That's likie saying that CDs are useless for your turntable.
> >
> Sure, but not only my turntable also my preferred pre-amp, amp and
speakers,
> and "last but not least" my listening room!
>

The point is, don't diss multichannel because *you* choose to ignore the
format.

> > > and most often puts me in a seat that I
> > >wouldn't have chosen.
> >
> > At least, it's a real seat on the better recordings. Besides, those
> > RCA Living Stereo and Mercury Living Presence SACDs have the original
> > 3channels!
> >
> Besides I've seen it written (on usenet) that 3 track MLP multi level
> players will appear in the fall, along with such recordings (?) presumably
> designed to play such recordings, so SACDs are not going to serve that
> purpose at all.

Reading it on usenet doesn't mean it is true. Be careful in your
assumptions.