I have never owned a SACD. Do they play on just any old player? And will you hear the difference then? Is there really a difference? I am sure when I listen to a pristine Cd of e.g. VL at someone's house who owns a mega soundsystem, or when they put soemthing on in the recording studio it akways does sound way cool. I just wondre if I went out and bought SACDs and then played them at home in my crappy poor man's ebay-purchased soundsystem, woukld it be worth it?

I don't wnat to bet bamboozled like it always happoens with your own stuff in the studiuo. Engineer plays you the tracks from the session and it's all groovy until you play it in your own shitebox.

i tried one in a record store. in my opinion
the sound is too clean for the stones.
my favourite is always vinyl. dirty. yeah:-)

-----------------------------------------------------
Oh, give me the beat, boys, and free my soul
I wanna get lost in your rock and roll and drift away

I think SACDs are released with two layers, one for regular CD players and one for SACD players. In other words, you have to have the player to actually hear the SACD version. Supposedly, the SACD sound on the Stones' and Dylan re-issues was remarkably improved. That's second-hand, as I haven't heard them myself.

I think there is a question as to whether SACD will become a viable format. From what I've heard/read the new DVD format is supposed to be even better sound-wise.

Karl

'Don’t forget, if you’re on your bike, wear white'

I invested in a Pioneer NS-DV1000 multi-format surround sound system last Autumn, which can play SACD and DVD-Audio amongst myriad other formats.

I have all the Stones and Dylan SACD releases, as well as those by other artists.
Generally speaking, the sound detail and depth is definitely improved with SACD, as opposed to normal CDs, even digitally remastered ones.

TeleK is right, the sound is "cleaner" as it is digitally treated but it depends on individual taste whether this is good or bad.

Several factors can influence the outcome of the quality of an SACD recording:
1. The original quality of the production, engineering and mastering of a
recording and those undertaking those duties at the time.

2. Whether the original master reel tapes were sourced for the SACD production.

3. Who was responsible for the remastering and SACD treatment - the engineer
and who "mixed"and "mastered"(best if someone at Sterling Sound!!) it.

4. Whether the artists who created the original recording were involved in the
remastering/SACD project. The musicians can often ask the engineer/s doing
the mixing and mastering of the recording to tweak it (in other words meddle
with the original sound). In some cases this can benefit the recording and
at other times change it so much that it does not retain the same feel, to
the recording's detriment. Purists will, of course, disapprove of this
practice!!! Engineers unsupervised by the artists will do this anyway, so
in a way best if the artists are participating in the transfer.

This is why sometimes remastered CDs sound unnaturally different to the
unremastered version of the same CD and why ordinary CDs sound so far
removed from their vinyl companions, beyond them being digital recordings.
It also accounts for the difference in quality of remastered CDs.
The Free, Led Zeppelin and Deep Purple remastered back catalogues sound
stunning, as appropriate time and money was invested in the remastering by
the record labels. Listen to some CDs remastered by label "in-house" teams
on a budget, e.g. albums by Rainbow and you can tell the remastering is
inferior. The Columbia/Polydor Legacy Master series CDs are fabulous examples
of quality remastering (check out Jeff Buckley's "Grace," WOW) but they were
not produced in SACD format, just ordinary CD.

5. The equipment that you are listening to the SACDs on, the player and the
speakers alike.

The Dylan SACDs are really tremendous and are the benchmark for this format; they truly enhance the recordings.

The Stones SACDs are variable, certainly anything before Beggars Banquet is not so good, as the original production and engineering jobs on the recordings were just not too clever.

Pink Floyd's "Darkside of the Moon" SACD sounds rather splendid and is better than the normal remastered CD.

SACD is apparently being phased out by Sony anyway, as it was not deemed commercial the success they had hoped, so if you want own copies of some of your favourite artists on SACD format, buy them whilst they are around!!!

Whether this means DVD-Audio will triumph remains to be seen, i have not got anything on that format yet, to compare it with SACD. When I get Bowie's "Live" and "Stage" - out in DVD-Audio early July, I will be able to formulate a view on this subject.

SD

To make a long story short: SACD it closer to analog than to digital because of the higher (more than twice) sample rate compared to CD. That means you have less "stairs" when digitalizing the analog curve. So if you like vinyl you are better off with SACD (presumed your amp and boxes make the difference, my SACD player has a tube analog output stage and my amp is a tube amp, too)

my player isn't SACD-capable, and i bought my first Stones SACD hybrid pretty reluctantly, since i was skeptical about it sounding appreciably different, and even if it did i wasn't real eager to replace my whole early collection.
the next thing i knew i had replaced my whole early collection with these hybrids. they sound really good to me (and i still haven't heard them on SACD-capable equipment).


"What do you want - what?!"
- Keith

well worth the investment of hardware/software for discriminating Stones/Dylan fans. big diff in sound quality, IMO.

I think SACD is a fantastic format. That said not all SACD offerings are of equal quality based on what I have heard, but I am slowly accumulating a nice collection and have had very few disappointments. The Stones ABKCO SACD collection was very well done. The hybrid discs are cool because you can play them on regular cd players even if you don't have a SACD player, a surround amp/pre-amp or receiver. The Stones SACD recordings come across with greater depth, the bass has renewed definition. You can hear the band with renewed clarity. Small nuances become apparent that were previously buried. UP loud these recordings reveal probably as close to what the band was trying to present when the songs were laid down on tape. Just like the old Decca vinyl. It makes for exciting listening. Yes, some of the tracks that were used are slightly different takes than were on the original albums. Ruby Tuesday comes to mind, but there are others as well. I would encourage all serious fans of the Stones with the financial means to go out and buy an SACD player, upgrade your receivers to one with surround capability. While the Stones SACD collection is 2 channel as opposed to multi channel surround, it is still terrific. These cd's sound better than any the original ABKCO cd releases in my opinion, and I hope the post ABKCO albums get similar treatment some day from Virgin. I feel the audio upgrades I invested in to enable SACD format was worth every penny. If you have the cash what better way to send it than on your stereo system? Best advice is to go tom a quality audio components store and give these albums a listen. Let your ears and your pocketbook be your guide. If you are willing to pump hundreds or thousands into getting to a concert, the audio upgrade should deserve equal or greater pririty since you can listen to that stuff countless times and it will always sound great up until the time we cash in all the chips.

On the whole there's not alot that can
be done, beyond a point,to clean up these original
sixties analogue tapes. The Stones SACD's are better
than what was generally available before, at least in
North America, but is kind of a gimmick, or maybe a case
of too little too late. One doubts the media has caught on
or will be available, discs or players, a few years from now.
Still, they are often still worth it for the remastering,
even if only on the regular first level.

I have two SACD players, a Sony and a Pioneer, and tho they
sound okay, quite frankly, I can't say I bother with
them much, and within a year or two of their release,
both seem to no longer been discontinued, and you
have to look pretty hard to find another player,
at least around here. I'd say the writing is
on the wall -they're about to go the way of
the eight track.

One certainly dislikes buying music we already have, but in the case of SACD the listening experience is enhanced( at least it is to me). I hope the medium sticks even if it simply satisfies a small audiophile niche. For example, I bought Marvin Gayes Let's Get It On recently and compared to the earlier released cd. Much richer, I would even call it a soft warm sound. Very similar to hearing good quality vinyl through decent audio components. As usual you tend to get what you pay for. Given the current price of tickets for the upcoming tour Stones fans are hoping this is true.

As a complete technical idiot, I can only say I bought "More Hot Rocks" to test and was amazed that you could actually hear Bill Wymans bass on a few songs. I think it works well,but for the Stones who cares, Vinyl and Old CDs are fine otherwise your just not playing it loud enough

I bought a Sony SACD player just because I knew the Stones ABKCO catalog was being re-released. I do think the SACD layer sounds a bit better than the regular CD layer. The Stones releases are "hybrid" SACD's which do have two layers, regular CD and SACD, so they can be played back on a regular CD player. Sony has released SACD's that can't be played back on regular CD's. I think if the format is to survive, they need to release them as hybrids.
Dark Side of the Moon is another Hybrid that is in 5.1 surround. This disc sounds absolutely awesome. I bought Oasis What's the Story SACD and the sound is unbelievably better than the regular CD. Cymbals sound crisp and clear.

I have all of the Stones SACD's and I think that they are fantastic. Some of the mid-60's tracks that I never listened to much I am truly enjoying -- Between the Buttons and Aftermath, in particular. Other tracks that sound much more alive, with more vivid soundfields include most of the acoustic material - Prodigal Son, Wild Horses. It is all 2-channel Stereo, though, so unless you have good equipment, properly set up (i.e., not headphones, two speakers properly distanced, etc.) then I am not sure you will hear much difference. BUT, there is one multi-channel SACD Stones track out there -- The Sympathy for the Devil CD single included a 5.1 channel remix of the original recording and it is a revelation. Unfortunately, hi-rez multi-channel audio is limited to audiophiles. SACD's days seem numbered.

I'll have to pick up the Sympathy Cd single. One thing to point out which I mentioned a while back, is that Satisfaction sounds alot better on Big Hits than it does on Out Of Our Heads. The acoustic guitar is in faint stereo and the drums (cymbals, snare) sound alot cleaner/crisper. I haven't listened to the Hot Rocks version. Don't know why ABKCO wouldn't use this version on all the albums Satisfaction is found on.

The Rolling Stones Project by Tim Ries is SACD hybrid disc.
This album attracts me thanks to Mick and Keith's composing ability.
I understand the quality of SACD depends on the music itself mostly.
I have reconfirmed that Slipping Away has an excellent melody.
Must item for Stones fan to fill up the time for the new album.