CD vs SACD in STEREO

For some reason, my post from yesterday seems to have disappeared.

@RichardBrand - in 85 it would have been impossible to produce a commercial multitrack album purely digitally because there was no software capable of doing what outboard compressors, equalizers, reverb do. Even now, most top producers prefer to use outboard rather than mixing in the box. There are exceptions such as Andrew Scheps - though whether is in the box mixes are better than his earlier work is open to question.

@Kraftwerkturbo - re on the right track. To a point - but both Jazz at the Pawnshop and Muddy Waters Folk Singer are analogue recordings transferred to DSD. There are lots of similar Jazz and Blues recordings from the analogue era.

Cafe Blue was originally recorded on a 32 track digital multitrack at 16/48 so it is not a minimalist recording at all.

I had the first generation Pioneer universal player and it had multi-channel on DVD-A and SACD.  But it also had the "chroma bug" and inserted the extra space between tracks.  Pioneer said they could fix this, and held the unit for 3 months before admitting they couldn't do anything about it and refunded my purchase.  The Hotel California space before the Reprieve was too long, and this bothered me.

I then got the first generation Yamaha universal player and it also had multi-channel DVD-A and SACD.  I still have this unit.

Back then DVD-A and SACD were under different licenses (or such) and the decoding circuitry is totally independent for the two formats.

Now I use an Oppo-95.

@ericrhodes1 

@big_greg is right.. The first SACD's were 2-channel only. They only had a left and right analog out and usually one digital out for pcm on cd playback. And the first discs were only two channel. Only DVD-A was multi channel for a very long time after that. I sold them both in '99

We are debating whether the chicken or the egg came first (players or the media they play) back 25 years ago.  But what actually came first was the DNA or essential blueprint, the Scarlet Book which defines the multi-channel format.

If Sony, in its rush to be first, decided to only use 2 of the 6 available channels, so be it.  The unit they submitted to Gramophone for review came with a Japanese demonstration SACD which the reviewer found shrill and harsh.

The August 2001 review by Andrew Everard noted the Philips SACD1000 was the first machine able to play multichannel discs, a step towards making SACD a mass-market medium. 

The subsequent October 2001 issue featured a dedicated review column for "Multi-Channel SACD Reviews," which covered the playback experience of 13 multichannel SACD discs using a Sony player and surround sound speakers. Reviewers noted that well-executed multichannel recordings added a significant dimension to the listening experience compared to stereo versions. 

@yoyoyaya 

in 85 it would have been impossible to produce a commercial multitrack album purely digitally because there was no software capable of doing what outboard compressors, equalizers, reverb do. 

Except that well-made classical recordings rarely resort to outboard compressors, equalisers or reverb.  From Mercury Living Presence through RCA Living Stereo and on to 2L today, many classical recordings use purist microphone techniques where sound quality is determined by the conductor and musicians, not some bloke on a mixing desk.

1985 is about 15 years before the SACD specification was released. But Pentatone, for example, has access to quadraphonic recordings made in the 1970s.

@richardbrand "Multichannel Support: The format was designed to support both high-quality stereo and multichannel surround sound (e.g., 5.1 surround). Multichannel SACDs provide a more immersive listening experience with discrete back and center channels.". - Chat GPT

ChatGPT is wrong. I suspect it's getting confused with DVD-Audio.