Chailly RCO/Decca M9 revist

[Leo K]

I finally heard this M9, went though it twice tonight, and sit amazed at the warm of the sound...what a hall!  Since I was just listening to the Ozawa/BSO/Phillips M9, I couldn't help but notice the similarity in terms of the lyrical "long-lined" playing though the score...but the Chailly is much slower overall, and because of the excellant sonics, this M9 sounds vast in scope...vertically, the details of the score are easily heard, arising from the deep waters of resonant sound...an incredible listening experience! 

A great M9 indeed!  I raise my glass.

--Todd

[merlin]

Thanks for the interesting review.  It would seem, however, that Chailly lacks the intensity and fire of Bernstein???

[John Kim]

Thanks for the interesting review.  It would seem, however, that Chailly lacks the intensity and fire of Bernstein???

I think there is fire and intensity but it's more subtle and won't reach you easily unless you pay a close attention or have a good player. You definitely need to listen to the SACD layer to fully appreciate the recording. For example, the short but mighty bass drum roll at the third climax in I. must be heard in the SACD format. Chailly's conducting is thoughtfull and highly sophisticated but is not devoid of the intensity and fire that you're looking for. It's a top notch recording.

John,

[merlin]

Thanks, John.  I am especially interested in this because it is SACD!

[achri-d]

First let me state clearly that I fully agree in the following statement:

It's a top notch recording.

However, I cannot agree with the following as a general statement:

You definitely need to listen to the SACD layer to fully appreciate the recording. For example, the short but mighty bass drum roll at the third climax in I. must be heard in the SACD format.

It can be true in some system configurations - but not in mine, and I would assume in a lot of other systems as well.

I have a 2-channel system that provides CD&SACD, and a 5.1 surround system that plays multichannel SACD. Both are good systems, actually very good systems. In my experience hybrid discs - of which this is an example - do not necessarily provide the best SACD sound. On the contrary - the CD-layer on this particular disc (decca 475 6191) provides better sound than the two SACD-layers in my system.

ACD.

[merlin]

I wonder how the SACD can provide worse sound than the CD layer since the specs for the former are much greater in terms of frequency response, bit rate, sampling, and such?

I also have a high-end player and system, and this has never been true in my experience.

Obviously YMMV....

[achri-d]

I wonder how the SACD can provide worse sound than the CD layer since the specs for the former are much greater in terms of frequency response, bit rate, sampling, and such?

Before I can complete my arguments, please define "specs for the former are much greater in terms of frequency response, bit rate, sampling, and such". There are issues I don't understand.

In the meantime - notice that I only state that for this particular disc played in my system the CD-layer sounds better. I provide no general statement about SACD compared to CD. Further notice that a better technical specification does not always imply better results in practice.

ACD.

[merlin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

This explains the technology far better than I can.

Clearly specs alone do not imply better results, but if both the CD and SACD layers were created from the same master, then it seems difficult to believe that the former would sound better in the same system.

[Leo K]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

This explains the technology far better than I can.

Clearly specs alone do not imply better results, but if both the CD and SACD layers were created from the same master, then it seems difficult to believe that the former would sound better in the same system.

John Kim has stated this SACD sounds great on both the CD and SACD layer...in terms of sound quality, he mentioned the SACD layer of this release was among the best he heard for this work (he has heard all the SACD M9's)...I hope I quote John correctly!

--Todd

[merlin]

I hope so too, Todd!  I am interested in this performance because of the SACD SQ.

As I posted a bit ago relative to Fischer/BFO M2 SACD, I believe the SQ made a huge difference in my appreciation of this music.

[John Kim]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

This explains the technology far better than I can.

Clearly specs alone do not imply better results, but if both the CD and SACD layers were created from the same master, then it seems difficult to believe that the former would sound better in the same system.

John Kim has stated this SACD sounds great on both the CD and SACD layer...in terms of sound quality, he mentioned the SACD layer of this release was among the best he heard for this work (he has heard all the SACD M9's)...I hope I quote John correctly!

--Todd

That is correct, Todd.

Thanks 

John,

[achri-d]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Audio_CD

1. I am sorry to say this - but I do not argue with a web page. That is, I wanted your interpretation on the issues – since you entered the discussion. Not the views of somebody else.

2. Given your

Obviously YMMV....

I assumed humbly that you knew DSP, SRC, PCM, DSD, Nyquist-Shannon theorem, imaging&aliasing, etc.

In addition, I hope you take the time and read the page you referenced. It explains quite easily why – as you ask –

I wonder how the SACD can provide worse sound than the CD layer since the specs for the former are much greater in terms of frequency response, bit rate, sampling, and such?

it may happen that SACD can be, sometimes, less successful than CD. The JAES study referenced in your ref is also quite interesting and is worth reading as a background to discussions like this one.

I see no need to further elaborate on these DP issues here.

ACD.