Are There Any TSOP SACD?

[mr_june]

I've never seen one myself. If not what a shame. Why is it that mostly rock groups and classical music dominate high rez audio? Motown has a few titles so why not Philly or some Curtis Mayfield. While I'm asking, is there any Burt Bacharach in high rez?

[soulster]

Mr. June, that is because most soul music fans do not buy, or even care about quality audio. That is the truth.

How many times over the last few years have I tried to discuss hi-rez audio and no one around here cares? I once started a thread about R&B music on HD Tracks and no one cared. Some are happy with listening to all their music on YouTube. All the forum wants to talk about is what Diana Ross belched 40 years ago. Sickening.

Now, because not enough support is given to audiophile R&B by the fans, the record labels will not issue much of it. I haven't even seen any new soul hi-rez titles on HD Tracks in months.

I asked a famous audiophile engineer many years ago why we don't see more R&B gold CD or SACD releases. He told me that studies they did confirm that the titles don't sell well. They would love to sell more R&B, but the consumers don't seem to want it. YOU guys aren't buying it. Face it: more rock, jazz, and classical fans are audiophiles, so that's why there are more titles. of that genre. The same goes for new vinyl reissues If soul fans won't buy them, the companies don't have any motivation to reissue them.

If any audiophile reissues get out there, it's always the same old Marvin Gaye, Stevie Wonder, stuff the usual rock fan knows about. Maybe we have seen one audiophile O'Jays, one earth, Wind & Fire, one Michael Jackson, one Isley Brothers, one Al Green...all the ones rock fans know about. And, not even those sold very well, according to the industry.

Apparently, it's not about not having money. You guys seem to come up with the big bucks when it comes to buying multiple copies of Diana Ross and Supremes music.

[tamla617]

You're right soulster. I'm not interested, I'm not chasing things I won't hear. Jet engines, clubs, general loud music and "life" have seen to that. Kings new clothes with the £25 a foot speaker cable [[don't forget the gold embellishment to the connections) Take the Hi rez and play it in the car? I've seen some stupid audiophiles and the cash they waste. Only playing master discs for a certain number of times, all logged down, then stick 'em out for the bin men or sell them to buy exactly the same disc and repeat. Each to their own, the rich tapestry etc.

[soulster]

Tam,

Some audiophiles may very well be wealthy, but many are not, and most aren't stupid, and it's really sad to see that people have such a low opinion of them, especially since they are the ones who are recording and mastering the music you do buy.

Sure, there are ridiculous things like green ink on CDs and overpriced cables that cost as much as a sports car, but it also shows how little most people know about quality audio, like that shorter speaker cables sound better than long runs, and the electrical current in your house has an effect on the sound you hear. There is a sound scientific basis for many of the audiophile products. Quieter cars made today make it easier to hear the nuances in the music. And, there are many people who have good hearing that can tell good sound from bad.

Most audiophiles are real music lovers who do not constantly trade their music. Your post makes me wonder how you arrived at your idea of what an audiophile is.

Nevertheless, I love soul music and grew up with it. I want to hear it in the best possible way, as close to the master tape as possible, not some mp3 posted on YouTube, or a lossy download from iTunes. You don't need mega-buck stereos to hear the difference, either.

I noticed a tinge of hostility in your post, and that same vibe seems to come from anyone anyone when discussing audiophiles and audiophile recordings. Why is that? Audiophiles aren't snooty, we just appreciate quality sound and are averse to bad sound.

We are not talking about remixing anything, just taking care to master the existing mixes in the best way possible. That's what it's all about.

[tamla617]

I'm not hostile to it. I've seen quite a few getting all wound up trying to find this perfect noise and the money they spent was unreal. I couldn't justify spending the money they did but it is their choice. I'm not now or ever going to go for the top quality sound. It would be a waste of time, for me. Like I said, not hostile but an answer to the question why I, for one, won't be buying.....With a bit of sarcasm, maybe.

[soulster]

Have you even heard a high-end rig? I have. Have you heard a $1000 turntable with a good cart? Speakers? Amp? That's the problem: most people haven't, so they have no point of reference, and that is the industry's fault. But, I can hear good sound on a modest stereo. All it takes is to know what to listen for.

A good stereo should make a band and singer sound like they are in your living room. I've had that experience.

I just don't understand the attitude. Why people have such a negative attitude toward trying to gain a more transparent sound in the home.

Having good sound doesn't have to be expensive, it just involves picking the right gear.

Again, where in the world do you, and others, get the idea that all audiophiles do is spend stupid money? Most audiophiles do not "throw money" at audio. There are those who can afford to, and I know some, but most do not. They get a good system and own tons of music.

But, getting back to the soul music on SACD or hi-rez files: fans of this music should be able to hear The Spinners, Marvin Gaye, or even Diana Ross in the best way possible. And, we could have it if the fans of the music would just start buying it. I created a thread for HDTracks last year with virtually no responses. I'm trying to leaf you guys to the water. Wouln't you like to hear Aretha Franklin, Sam & Dave, Michael Jackson, and Commodores in the best way possible? For our Canadian and U.K. members, there are now companies that also sell hi-rez files, as SACD is really a super-niche product now. I was hoping Atlantic would issue more hi-rez Chic albums, but I guess not enough people bought the one they uploaded for sale. Same with Sister Sledge and Slave.

[jillfoster]

Well, Soulster, I've always liked to participate in the audiophile discussions, because I like to learn things about the technical aspects. For instance, the cable runs. What do you consider a long cable run? My longest run is about 20 feet. Sound quality has so many peripheral factors, though.. such as your room. If your room is too small, too large, to many hard surfaces, too plushy, it all has an effect, I actually designed and decorated my house with that in mind, and although what I have, you don't think much of.. it's what i can afford and I like it. I can't spend thousands on stereo equipment, so a system that sold for 1,000$ in 1977 was the best I could muster. But I wish you could hear it, I just might make a believer out of ya! LOL I ALMOST bought a gold CD of the Bee Gees album "Trafalgar", but bailed at the last minute, it was so pricey, and I didn't see that there was that much room for improvement from the CD release I already had. But I could have been wrong. I've seen such huge differences in mastering of regular CD's, that's kind of where I put my energy.. finding best mastered versions of those. I've got some real ca-ca, and real wonderful quality stuff.. like my latest purchase, the expanded Al Wilson "Searching For The Dolphins", the sound quality on this disc is WONDERFUL, very well mastered. Al's voice just comes through so rich and has such depth it makes you close your eyes when you listen, cause you don't want any other sensory input. I suppose with vinyl, I kind of gut burned, because I had a Shure 3X cartridge that I paid 20$ for at radio shack [[this was the 80's), and at that time, I thought I would try an upgrade, and spent 100$ on an audiophile Ortofon cartridge. It didn't sound as good. Audiophile stuff is such a vat of spaghetti, I just think most people aren't willing to untangle it and try to negotiate all the twists and turns that is involved in it.

[jack020]

There is one:
http://www.sa-cd.net/showtitle/694
Ship Ahoy!
Also I own quite a few Black Music SACD's: Isaac Hayes, Quincy Jones, Isley Bros plus Sony used to release quite a few of their biggest R'n'B sellers as SACD's.

Also George Benson has 2 HiDef albums on Monster.

[antceleb12]

Part of the problem with this discussion, at least for me, is the complexity of the technical side of it. When I studied jazz, we had to take a workshop on different sound systems and gear and it confused the heck out of me, and I'm normally pretty good with technology. When I read the thread title, I had no idea what it was about. To a lot of people, "HD" tracks mean nothing if you don't have a right equipment, and a lot of people aren't going to bother getting the right equipment if they don't know what they're buying into. Not all people care about having the high-def experience. I don't, personally. It's not all about the quality of the audio for me. For example, the Blossoms Ultimate Collection on iTunes has exceptionally poor audio quality, but I listen to it constantly because I like the way the girls sound and the band sounds on their own. That's just my preference. Personally, if a high-def version had been available at the same price, I would have bought it. But not if it was even a dollar more expensive.

[jillfoster]

I agree only in part, I also have the Blossoms ultimate collection, but only because it was the only format in which it was available. I do care about sound quality now, but didn't really until I got well into my twenties. I mean, most of us here started out listening to all these hits on AM radio, for God's sake. There's also the issue of picking your battles. I personally feel that pushing to get this material out on CD and properly mastered before the CD becomes obselete is a race against time. We also have the issue of getting the material out before the fan base that want to buy it is dead. In the grand scheme of thing, just getting this stuff out in a physical medium is more important than having the SACD experience. I admit, I''ve never heard an SACD, but I have heard a CD I am VERY familiar with [[New Ways But Love Stays) played on a 7,000$ modern high end system, and it made no damn difference from my 1977 high end system. In fact, in some ways, it was worse.

[soulster]

Part of the problem with this discussion, at least for me, is the complexity of the technical side of it. When I studied jazz, we had to take a workshop on different sound systems and gear and it confused the heck out of me, and I'm normally pretty good with technology.

What about it confused you?

To a lot of people, "HD" tracks mean nothing if you don't have a right equipment, and a lot of people aren't going to bother getting the right equipment if they don't know what they're buying into.

A lot of people are still stuck on the concept of physical media. HD Tracks are files of music that is of a higher resolution than a CD. It is equal to, or superior to analog tape.

There are sevaral ways to play your downloaded hi0rez files:

You can play them right from your computer with a variety of programs like Foobar 2000, iTunes, and J River. Here's a list of some good programs:

http://www.hdtracks.com/digital-store

Here are some resources:

http://www.hdtracks.com/other-resources

Here are some video tutorials:

http://www.hdtracks.com/tutorial

Not all people care about having the high-def experience.

That's painfully obvious...

I don't, personally. It's not all about the quality of the audio for me. For example, the Blossoms Ultimate Collection on iTunes has exceptionally poor audio quality, but I listen to it constantly because I like the way the girls sound and the band sounds on their own.

But, think of this: the singers, and the music will sound better in hi-rez. I don't know if that particular album is available in hi-rez, but wouldn't you be interested in hearing it in the best way possible if it were? Have you ever heard hi-rez?

That's just my preference. Personally, if a high-def version had been available at the same price, I would have bought it. But not if it was even a dollar more expensive.

Understood. Personally, I always look for these options in this order:
hi-rez
vinyl
CD
lossy download

I don't always go for the hi-rez solution. It depends on the title. But, I avoid lossy because the sound stage will be collapsed and one-dimensional, and I would not get the full bandwidth. Why waste my money on bad sound? Life's too short.

I ripped all of my 70,000 songs on CDs and needle drops of vinyl albums and 45s to hard drives. That way, I can just pull up any music I want to hear on the computer, which is connected to my home stereo system. I can stream it to a stereo, or a laptop + powered speakers in the bedroom, or take them with me. I can stream my music from anywhere in the world with an internet connection, even in the car. Or, I can just take a copy hard drive and plug it in at someone's house so they can enjoy my collection.

Life is good with the many ways to enjoy music today.

But, getting back to the purpose of the thread: rock music lovers care about their music enough to buy hi-rez, why not R&B fans?

[tamla617]

Soulster
I have listened to some very expensive systems. A lin sondek [[the spelling probably isn't correct) turn table, it was basically a block of wood with platter and tone arm, he also had some tuner/amp by Yamaha, it was a wide low unit, easy double the width and depth of normal separates and some Pioneer speakers that were the size of a standard uk fridge and took 2 to lift it. Anyway it obviously sounded good and for the price of a decent 2nd hand car it should. However, my records sounded evil, not up to the quality required for the system.
I got his old Sony turntable with four Ortofon VMS 20e mk2 carts for pennies, still have it.

I also listened to a Canadian effort, I think it was called Oracle, a Perspex thing with exposed motor, belts etc. the record sat on 3 or 4 pillars, weird, sounded good though. I cant think what the rest of the system was except for one "box" having valves instead of normal/modern components. this was in the late 70's/early eighties in W. Germany. My records only made to his Lin sondek because the cart had done the required number of "plays" and being replaced. That was the first reason for not getting into it, my records were not up to the kit!
Take the Motown singles. They were made to sound good on transistor radios and car radios. How are they going to sound on the good stuff. Can you sort out the shortfalls with Hi-rez and/or hd?

[mr_june]

Thanks for the responses and thanks Soulster for being a like minded sword bearer. I have a decent audio system for music and movies. had a Sony SACD changer in my home theater system but replaced it with an Oppo 103. The speakers I have are a 7.1 system from Dr. Hsu of Hsu Research [[Anaheim, Ca). Only known and respected company that I know of that if you call them you stand a good chance of speaking to the owner or his son Peter.

I have a friend at work who is into DVD Audio, Blu Ray Audio, and SACD. We talk quite often about finding disc for a decent price as many are out of print and go for an arm n leg. I just picked up America's first album on SACD and what a difference between the red book CD and SACD. High resolution audio is so much better and it makes you want to hear more of the artist and music you like in that format. That friend at work happens to be the only person I know personally who is into high rez. For the record, he is a anglo saxon. That needs to be mentioned because they champion high rez more than soul brothers do as far as I know and these post here go in that same direction.

It would be great to have for example at least Aretha's greatest hits in high rez. It makes me smile just thinking about it. Oh well, I heard a report out of the 2014 Consumer Electronic Show that just wrapped up last week that high resolution audio is not dead but reported to be looking for more support from the industry.

Tamla, high rez audio is uncompressed whereas a red book CD is compressed to fit on the disc. High rez is free to fly without any restraints. It's just like the difference between regular DVD and Blu Ray and Dolby True Hd audio and compressed Dolby audio for movies. They can separate voices and instruments and put them different channels. High rez audio music [[when done right) is cleaner, clearer, and more powerful. You can hear things you never heard before. The only negative I can think of is the lack of titles and the high prices for titles that are no longer in print. They are still being released but like it has been said it's mostly titles by rock, classical and jazz artist . You have to be alert when titles are released so you can get them at a decent price and before they are gone. To me it's worth the effort.

[tamla617]

Back in 72 [[!) it was the Prog. Rock guys and only them, [[in our unit) that were into top end HI-Fi. Their music of choice being 99% released as LPs. Never saw them with singles. They used to buy and record it asap and put the lp away and just play the cassette tape, it doesn't make sense of the up market Hi-Fi does it? That's how they did it though. While they were doing this I was buying twice as much music because I didn't owe money for the expensive ish thing to play it on. I don't know if Prog. Rock fans were all the same or if this is the the fan base of Hi-Rez etc. is the way it is today.

[smark21]

Based on the discussions in this forum, when not discussing gossip and scandals in groups [[or sales and charts) a lot of posters here tend to focus on the vocals and not as much on instrumentation and virtuoso playing. Rock fans, especially of the prog rock variety [[ugh!) are more into guitar solos and the like. Maybe that might be one reason why more rock fans are hard core audiophiles vis a vis classic soul fans?

[jillfoster]

Based on the discussions in this forum, when not discussing gossip and scandals in groups [[or sales and charts) a lot of posters here tend to focus on the vocals and not as much on instrumentation and virtuoso playing. Rock fans, especially of the prog rock variety [[ugh!) are more into guitar solos and the like. Maybe that might be one reason why more rock fans are hard core audiophiles vis a vis classic soul fans?

That's a good point. I myself tend to be frustrated with the incessant discussion of vocals with no talk of the rest of the production. I guess not many people follow producers like I do, and actually make record purchases not based on the recording artist, but the producer.

[smark21]

There are a couple of members here who are so focused on vocals [[when they do discuss a song or album) I sometimes wonder if they even hear the music or think they are listening to a capella recordings.

[soulster]

My records only made to his Lin sondek because the cart had done the required number of "plays" and being replaced. That was the first reason for not getting into it, my records were not up to the kit!

I have records that go all the way back to the 50s and are not in such great shape, but I clean them and play them on my $500 AT 150mlx cart. They sound quite good. But, since 1976, I started taking very good care of my records, so some sound as good as the day I bought them.

Take the Motown singles. They were made to sound good on transistor radios and car radios. How are they going to sound on the good stuff.

Better than they would on a transistor radio, car radio, or cheap mono record player. I would not play my old Motown or Stax sides on my Music Hall TT except to make a digital transfer.

Can you sort out the shortfalls with Hi-rez and/or hd?

No, because there aren't any. If Universal creates a hi-rez recording from the, say, mono mix of "Baby, I Need Your Loving" by The Four Tops, they are going to take it from the mono master tape, not the 45. The sound will be superior over the 45.

[soulster]

That friend at work happens to be the only person I know personally who is into high rez. For the record, he is a anglo saxon. That needs to be mentioned because they champion high rez more than soul brothers do as far as I know and these post here go in that same direction.

There are a few of us brothers out here who do love hi-rez, but we are rare. Soul music begs for quality sound much more than a lot of rock music! So, why the lack of interest?

It would be great to have for example at least Aretha's greatest hits in high rez. It makes me smile just thinking about it.

http://www.hdtracks.com/catalogsearc...retha+Franklin

They are not discs, but you can always burn your own hi-rez disc, either PCM, or SACD, provided you have the proper software or hardware for the latter. Or, just buy a DAC. DACs are popular these days because of hi-rez digital. BTW, I haven't been able to get to CES for the last two years. I miss it. I don't even live far away from Las Vegas.

Tamla, high rez audio is uncompressed whereas a red book CD is compressed to fit on the disc.

Uh...that is wrong information. Redbook is not compressed or data-reduced. It is lossless, meaning that the carrier does not discard data as, say, the files on iTunes do. The CD, however, does not contain the same dynamic range that is adequate for the full resolution that is on the original master tapes. In the case of original digital recordings, they are only as good as the sampling rate and bit-depth of the recording. The converters used in the creation of the recording and/or the CD also makes a difference.

The only negative I can think of is the lack of titles and the high prices for titles that are no longer in print. They are still being released but like it has been said it's mostly titles by rock, classical and jazz artist .

There are a few labels that are dedicated to reissuing the soul titles from the late 70s and early 80s, but they are compressing the shit out of them in mastering so they don't sound as good as they should. At those times, I will look for the hi-rez. However, since R&B titles of this nature are even somewhat rare as lossy downloads, there is often no choice but to find the original vinyl and do the transfers and restoration myself. I just may have the only digital versions of lots of things in the world!

You have to be alert when titles are released so you can get them at a decent price and before they are gone. To me it's worth the effort.

I've been holding off on a few R&B titles on HD Tracks, but I worry that i'll let them slide by too long and they will go away. I recently bought a Staples Singers album there, but I need to get The Dramatics before it disappears.

[soulster]

Based on the discussions in this forum, when not discussing gossip and scandals in groups [[or sales and charts) a lot of posters here tend to focus on the vocals and not as much on instrumentation and virtuoso playing. Rock fans, especially of the prog rock variety [[ugh!) are more into guitar solos and the like. Maybe that might be one reason why more rock fans are hard core audiophiles vis a vis classic soul fans?

I don't understand why soul fans wouldn't also be interested in the musical part. After all, that is the foundation of the music! The music is what makes R&B R&B!

I even buy recordings based on the engineers! I'm a music lover and a musician, but i'm also into the technical side of it. I've been that way since I was a little kid.

[jack020]

Soulster:
for Aretha on HiDef cd:
http://www.rhino.com/product/the-bes...c-mix-handmade

[mr_june]

Thanks for the correction Soulstar. It's live and learn time every day. Also thanks for that link and Jack thanks for the Rhino link. I was unaware of Aretha's HD disc [[make that downloads). I've never got into downloading but these HD versions are the straw that broke the camel's back and I'll be purchasing a few for sure. To everyone who posted thanks for the info as I found it is very interesting.

[soulster]

Soulster:
for Aretha on HiDef cd:
http://www.rhino.com/product/the-bes...c-mix-handmade

The quad mixes are not the original mixes you know and love. They are different mixes than the usual stereo and mono mixes.

I am not a fan of surround sound.

[mr_june]

Here's a list of some good programs:

http://www.hdtracks.com/digital-store

Here are some resources:

http://www.hdtracks.com/other-resources

Here are some video tutorials:

http://www.hdtracks.com/tutorial




That's painfully obvious...



But, think of this: the singers, and the music will sound better in hi-rez. I don't know if that particular album is available in hi-rez, but wouldn't you be interested in hearing it in the best way possible if it were? Have you ever heard hi-rez?



Understood. Personally, I always look for these options in this order:
hi-rez
vinyl
CD
lossy download

I don't always go for the hi-rez solution. It depends on the title. But, I avoid lossy because the sound stage will be collapsed and one-dimensional, and I would not get the full bandwidth. Why waste my money on bad sound? Life's too short.

I ripped all of my 70,000 songs on CDs and needle drops of vinyl albums and 45s to hard drives. That way, I can just pull up any music I want to hear on the computer, which is connected to my home stereo system. I can stream it to a stereo, or a laptop + powered speakers in the bedroom, or take them with me. I can stream my music from anywhere in the world with an internet connection, even in the car. Or, I can just take a copy hard drive and plug it in at someone's house so they can enjoy my collection.

Life is good with the many ways to enjoy music today.

But, getting back to the purpose of the thread: rock music lovers care about their music enough to buy hi-rez, why not R&B fans?

Got Aretha's Lady Soul and am very satisfied [[one more drain hole on the wallet too) with that website and the product. It would be nice if you could select certain songs from each of her albums but that's ok. It looks like I might be able to separate the ones I like and make a file from that. My favorite Aretha song is Ain't No Way [[a song that fades out a bit quicker than it should) by her sister Carolyn. What a joy to hear it so clearly.