Don, I'm glad you like the SACD's. There are very mixed opinions on them. I do think the transfer
from the original tapes was good to excellent (in the excellent cases, there is little difference in
instrument timbre, tape noise profile and dynamics from the CD's; in the good cases, the sound
quality is different, including less "room tone" and somewhat different timbres to the instruments).
The biggest difference is the 2-channel layer of the SACD, which is a mix unlike how the original
LPs and CDs sounded. The SACD engineer chose to take the center channel down several dB from how the
original producer mixed 3-2, resulting in a weaker middle sound. Some may prefer this, but it's not
how the originals were mixed. You can compare the 2-channel SACD with the CD layer to hear the
difference. It's not so blatant that the center drops out or part of the orchestra is missing, but
it results in a different perspective from how the mixes were done by the original production team.
The Mercury sound is based very much around the center microphone. Remember that the mono LPs, until
there were no mono LPs released, were made from the single (center) mic, as they had been since
1951. The reason 3-channel stereo was chosen in the first place (aside from the fact that no 2-mic
pickup was satsifactory to the producer and engineer) was mono compatability (remember that Mercury
began recording stereo masters in 1955 and stereo LPs didn't come until 1958, and mono LPs outsold
stereo until the mid-60's). So when a 3-2 mix was executed, both for the original LPs and the CDs,
the whole process starts with the center. In fact the 3-2 mixer (which had no EQ modules), split the
center track and fed it to one fader for each left and right, so the producer could absolutely
center the center (remember that tube electronics are subject to vagueries of components, weather,
etc, and we're talking about a production team with very acute hearing). The left and right sides
were then built up to complement the center -- to add width, depth and height to the stereo image.
Usually, the faders were all near zero (neutral), but sometimes one side or another would be a
couple of dB up or down. It's subtle, that's why the 3-channel SACD layer usually sounds
well-balanced (it was transferred with no cut or boost on any channel).
All in all, the SACD's have some fans, and they sold out from a limited production run, but it was
not a hit and thus they had a short life in print. By the way, HDTracks sells the 2-channel layers
as high-rez PCM downloads. What they are selling sounds identical to my ears to the 2-channel SACD
layers, so it's a well-transcoded product and is as advertised in my opinion.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Fwd: [ARSCLIST] Mercury 51-CD box set now officially set for USA and Europe
m...
> On 30/01/2012, Tom Fine wrote:
>
>> Just to note the facts on the SACD's -- those transfers (the SACD
>> layer) was not done by the original producer, and original playback
>> equipment was not used. The sound quality is quite different,
>> especially the 2-channel layer -- that's a 2-channel mix by someone
>> not from the original production team and not at the original
>> sessions. If your ears prefer that, great, but it is different from
>> the 1990's CDs. The SACD's are long out of print, and I think there's
>> a small group of collector-cultists who covet them due to scarcity
>> more than anything else.
>>
> I have all the CDs, all the SACDs, and a number of LPs.
>
> To my ears, the SACDs sound better than the CDS. I am quite happy to
> listen to the CDs, but where the SACD is available I would listen to it
> by preference.
>
> My opinion is that the DSD conversion rather than the SACD distribution
> medium is responsible for most of the improvement.
>
> The Chabrier disc is particularly good on SACD.
>
> I was disappointed that the Gershwin concerto disc was not released as
> an SACD, as that has digital clipping on the CD. Maybe some others do
> too - this is the one I checked. It is a great performance.
>
>> Also just to be clear here, the CD remastering in the 1990's set the
>> bar for quality and fidelity. Unlike many competitors at the time,
>> these transfers were done from FIRST GENERATION master tapes (Mercury
>
> The SACDs were also made from the first generation tapes.
>
>> did not dub, actual session tapes were edited, in 3-channel during the
>> stereo era, and a 3-2 mix was made as the original LP was cut; same
>> goes for the CD's, 3-2 mix was made by the original producer, output
>> direct to A-D converter). The A-D conversion was using the
>> then-revolutionary dcs box, working in 24-bit.44.1kHz. That digital
>> signal was then fed to a Harmonia Mundi (sp?) digital buss with the
>> Weiss-designed dither-downconvert module, which produced a 16-bit/44.1
>> signal to feed digital-direct to the Sony 1630 master recorder. I've
>> heard master tapes, original LPs and 1990's CD's, in a level-matched
>> comparison setting. The CD's sound much closer to the master tapes
>> than any other released media. Also worth noting -- there is complete
>> disclosure of source material and recording details in the booklets
>> for each CD, including details about what was used in the few cases
>> where master tapes had been lost. In about a dozen cases, the original
>> music director/editor made new master edits from the "B" reels (second
>> tape recorder at the original sessions), because the "A" master tape
>> was lost or damaged beyond playability. In a very few cases,
>> everything had been lost except the 2-track second-generation that was
>> recorded during the original vinyl-mastering session, made from the
>> same 3-2 mix buss as the original LP. Unfortunately, one of those
>> cases was the Byron Janis Prokofiev/Rachmaninoff recording from
>> Moscow, the 35mm master for that has never been found and is presumed
>> to have been mistakenly destroyed in the 70's. As clearly noted in the
>> original CD booklets, there were a few cases where the original LP was
>> from a 35mm master but the 35mm was lost. In those cases, except for
>> the Moscow recording mentioned above, the 3-track 1/2" tape recorded
>> at the same time was used at the master (in the 35mm days, master
>> edits were done on both 35mm and 3-track due to global vinyl-cutting
>> logistics).
>>
>> So bottom line, since the entire Mercury team is now dead, the closest
>> you get to their hands and ears is the 1990's CD's. And, all of them
>> agreed (as did many "golden eared" critics) that the CD's sounded
>> closer to the master tapes (and thus closer to how the actual sessions
>> sounded) than any other release media. This includes instrument
>> balance, timbre, reverb tails, "room tone," etc. The big limitation to
>> enjoying all of this in the early 1990's was the typical CD playback
>> equipment of the time. In today's age of superb and reasonably-priced
>> DACs, that shouldn't be the case.
>>
> Did that "closer to" include the SACDs, or are you talking about
> opinions from when the CDs were released?
>
> Regards
> --
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]
>
|