Having wasted my money on the 2011 CD Remasters last year (haha!), I now find myself with the SACD versions of the albums (albeit with no extras and you'd think for the additional money SACDs cost, there would be extras).
The sound is, as you'd expect, much brighter and clearer. The bass is even more defined and tight and the top end (cymbals especially) is also more defined. Infact, I'd even say that having done some A/B testing the cymbals are more noticable on the SACDs than the CD versions.
What is interesting is that the SACDs peak at -6db.
Now, doing some A/B testing on a handful of songs from each album, I find that with the CD versions the bass rattles and vibrates the speakers on my shelf causing a little distortion, yet the SACD version (with the volume of the amp raised consderably to compensate for the lower audio), the speakers don't rattle, vibrate and distort at all, so having them peak at -6db on the disc as opposed to 0db must be making some difference.
Perhaps someone in the business can expalin? Maybe this is why they are on disc at a lower volume?
From now on I'll only be listening to the SACD versions:
I do believe these REALLY ARE the best we are ever going to hear the Queen albums short of them going back to the multitracks and remixing from scratch.
Amplify the SACD audio by 6db and they'll be pretty much identical - I promise you. They are the same files, except they haven't been dithered down to 16 bit. No mastering engineer masters music with a peak of -6db... the levels will have been lowered for the SACD to fool people like you! :) Add the fact that the remasters, bar Innuendo, are NOWHERE NEAR being brickwalled whatsoever - fucking hell, everyones an audiophile. Pfft.
Negative Creep wrote:
Amplify the SACD audio by 6db and they'll be pretty much identical - I promise you. They are the same files, except they haven't been dithered down to 16 bit. No mastering engineer masters music with a peak of -6db... the levels will have been lowered for the SACD to fool people like you! :) Add the fact that the remasters, bar Innuendo, are NOWHERE NEAR being brickwalled whatsoever - fucking hell, everyones an audiophile. Pfft.
I'm ashamed to say that you are correct.
I posted this from my tablet after asking a friend to compare the wav forms for me and I reported what he told me!
Serves me right for not waiting a few hours and doing it myself!
Anyway, it still doesn't detract from the main points of the post which is how much better these doa ctually sound, though I'm not sure they are worth the extra money being charged, ie £70 an album on import!
I can only testify to the Queen II SACD, but I noticed a clarity and even a bit of depth not as present on the SHM disc. Could have been in my mind, but it seemed better to me.
Negative Creep wrote:
Amplify the SACD audio by 6db and they'll be pretty much identical - I promise you. They are the same files, except they haven't been dithered down to 16 bit. No mastering engineer masters music with a peak of -6db...
SACDs make better frisbees than ordinary CDs. Aside from that, I can't tell the difference. Mind you, after 30+ years of listening to rock music and playing electric guitar my ears are now like the worn out linings of an old suit. (A classy suit mind: Armani maybe. Not Primark)
Not directed at anyone on this thread but I think some people forget that what they are hearing is not necessarily what others are hearing. I know as I've gotten a bit older that I've lost the ability to hear some frequencies. It's a normal and natural consequence of the passage of time.
I am so thankful that people who know what they are talking about concerning this subject take interest in Queen and their releases...it's so freaking cool! For real!