RCA Red Seal, and other seals/marks

[vandermolen]

The Bax ended up re-released on Gold Seal which was the version I knew;



My copy of the LP is long gone but my memory was that consideration of the performances suffered from a sub-par transfer and LP pressing - particularly if at that time you were making sonic comparisons to the other Bax Symphonies on Lyrita for example....

The Red Seal LP was in the University Record Library in my student days - I listened to it over and over again in their special listening room. It was the (poorer quality) Gold Seal LP which I eventually bought.

[vandermolen]

I didn't know that the Khachturian 1 was Red Seal. Great performance and I agree that probably it is the best version. Hope it will be issued in CD format some day. The Bax looks interesting since it has a logo, not a seal, of Read Seal. I've never seen it before.

I've been waiting for that to happen for decades Manabu, so I'm not holding my breath. 

[Jo498]

I have two CDs of the Reiner Rossini Overtures. One is Gold Seal and the other is Living Stereo. The Gold Seal is somewhat muffled and the imaging and sound stage is so-so. The Living Stereo is vastly superior in sound quality. An expansive soundstage, pinpoint imaging, clear midrange and treble and a greater dynamic range. It's almost like comparing cassette tape to a CD without the hiss.

Are the discs from roughly the same time or is the "gold seal" 10 years older?
I once compared the Heifetz/Reiner Brahms concerto from living stereo CD with a 1995 Red Seal CD issue, together with an "audiophile" acquaintance; this was almost 20 years ago and I never was into audio tech, so I don't remember the setup (it was not a really expensive one but good enough). We both agreed that the Living stereo sounded brilliant but overly harsh and the other one was perfectly clear but more pleasant sounding. I don't have the living stereo disc anymore and cannot find a remastering date on the Red Seal disc I kept, but I doubt that the Red Seal was the first 1980s digital transfer/mastering but it was also obviously not identical to the Living Stereo.

As said above, I have myself bought some RCA recordings two or three times in different CD incarnations and often the newer transfers/remasterings were indeed clearly better. In the above case they were different but the supposed "luxury" Living Stereo was not better to us (again, the Red Seal was IIRC a more recent issue than the LS but I don't know about the masterings).

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

The Red Seal LP was in the University Record Library in my student days - I listened to it over and over again in their special listening room. It was the (poorer quality) Gold Seal LP which I eventually bought.

It's interesting you suggest that there is a big difference bet the Red Seal and the Gold Seal of the same performance in sound quality. More interesting, you say that the reissue (gold seal) became worse. Just like Joe above, I always assumed that the sound quality of reissues would get better and better. Clearly I'm wrong.

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

I have two CDs of the Reiner Rossini Overtures. One is Gold Seal and the other is Living Stereo. The Gold Seal is somewhat muffled and the imaging and sound stage is so-so. The Living Stereo is vastly superior in sound quality. An expansive soundstage, pinpoint imaging, clear midrange and treble and a greater dynamic range. It's almost like comparing cassette tape to a CD without the hiss.

I agree with everything you said. 

It seems that everyone here is complaining about the sound of Gold Seal. 

[Jo498]

It's interesting you suggest that there is a big difference bet the Red Seal and the Gold Seal of the same performance in sound quality. More interesting, you say that the reissue (gold seal) became worse. Just like Joe above, I always assumed that the sound quality of reissues would get better and better. Clearly I'm wrong.

To clarify, in this particular example I do not exactly know which one was the more recent issue but the Living Stereo was clearly marketed as special, the other one was not (although it might actually have been newer) and it's also disputable which one was "better".

In the case of the late 1980s/early 1990s Heifetz or Rubinstein editions, I usually found the later (around 2000 or even the big boxes since 2010 or so) issues clear improvements.

I wrote elsewhere that I basically gave up on re-issues some time in the 2000s because I found most differences too slight to bother.

[LKB]

To clarify, in this particular example I do not exactly know which one was the more recent issue but the Living Stereo was clearly marketed as special, the other one was not (although it might actually have been newer) and it's also disputable which one was "better".

In the case of the late 1980s/early 1990s Heifetz or Rubinstein editions, I usually found the later (around 2000 or even the big boxes since 2010 or so) issues clear improvements.

I wrote elsewhere that I basically gave up on re-issues some time in the 2000s because I found most differences too slight to bother.

Once again, l feel the urge to encourage those with SACD capability to seek out the RCA Red Seal SACD's. They are worth the effort, l assure you.

[Todd]

SACD failed for good reason. 

[LKB]

SACD failed for good reason.

If you care to support that assertion with something other than your opinion, I'm ready to see it.

Again: the Red Seal SACDs are an upgrade in sound quality over the vanilla releases. Of that there is no doubt whatsoever.

It is true that SACD demand fell off around 2008 or so, as .mp3s caught on. But experienced listeners can easily discern the difference between the two formats.

So, get the SACDs if you have the hardware for them, you won't regret it. 

[Todd]

If you care to support that assertion with something other than your opinion, I'm ready to see it.

SACD was a commercial failure.  That is a fact. 

Claims for the sonic superiority of SACD were marketing gibberish.  Any differences in sound quality were attributable to different masterings, not the technology, which is just one bit at a high sampling rate.  One can attempt to make the "argument" - and it is so very common for audiophiles to pretend they are making some type of serious arguments when they are not - that surround sound brought something new, but no one really cares about surround sound.

Audiophiles are basically just late middle aged and elderly men who physically cannot hear what they write and talk about. 

And I do have SACD capable gear, and very nice stereo gear, and I even worked with a speaker maker to have a custom design built which is now part of the speaker maker's permanent lineup.  I know all about audiophile BS.  SACD is pure BS.

[Spotted Horses]

Any differences in sound quality were attributable to different masterings, not the technology, which is just one bit at a high sampling rate.

You are correct that SACD has been a commercial failure and that the hype about high resolution is mainly marketing, the extra resolution is beyond human hearing. But you  are incorrect to disparage the format, one bit sampled at high rate.

ADC technology at the advent of the CD consisted of multi-bit converters. There was a unit that measured the voltage at, say, 16 bit accuracy, then it waited a fixed time and measured again, etc. The fact that CD masterings improved starting around 1990 is the widespread adoption of sigma-delta converters. The audio signal is converted to a current that charges a capacitor, and the potential on the capacitor is compared with a reference level at very high frequency. If the capacitor is more than halfway charged, the the converter discharges the capacitor and it resumes charging by the audio signal. The larger the audio signal the faster the capacitor is charging and the more often it gets discharged. The signal level corresponds to how often the capacitor needs to be discharged. Then the one-bit signal gets passed through some computational processing that converts it to he familiar format, the voltage as a function of time. Modern digital to analog converters work in a similar way. They take the voltage as a function of time and convert it to how often a high frequency single bit DAC needs to fire in order to reproduce the signal. Sony's DSD consists of storing the one-bit data stream directly That way it gets pass directly to the one bit DAC, without getting converted to multi-bit format and back again.

The hype comes in the fact that the single bit ADCs and DACs are superior, have lower noise, higher resolution and higher bandwidth, with or without the intermediate data processing that DSD bypasses. Modern masters benefit from audio content being captured, edited and otherwise processed at high resolution, so they can be converted to an absolutely optimum 44.1 kHz, 16 bit signal.

[Todd]

But you  are incorrect to disparage the format, one bit sampled at high rate.

I described what SACD is and why the marketing was BS.  Sony and SACD fanboys put very much stock in the fact that DSD has a 2.8224 MHz sampling rate.  That has as much benefit on sound as an ounce of pure snake oil.

[vandermolen]

It's interesting you suggest that there is a big difference bet the Red Seal and the Gold Seal of the same performance in sound quality. More interesting, you say that the reissue (gold seal) became worse. Just like Joe above, I always assumed that the sound quality of reissues would get better and better. Clearly I'm wrong.

I still was delighted to (finally) have the recording on Gold Seal but I think that the Red Seal was a better quality transfer. I think that Lol (Irons) knows more about this that I do - something about which country pressed the LP or the quality of the vinyl. However it could have been Roasted Swan or Biffo who commented on it.

[Biffo]

I still was delighted to (finally) have the recording on Gold Seal but I think that the Red Seal was a better quality transfer. I think that Lol (Irons) knows more about this that I do - something about which country pressed the LP or the quality of the vinyl. However it could have been Roasted Swan or Biffo who commented on it.

It wasn't me; out of nearly 400 LPs less than half-a-dozen are RCA of any seal and I have no knowledge of pressings. Previn's RVW 4 was the first new RCA disc I bought and I only collected the rest of the cycle on CD. The first RCA LP I bought was Rachmaninov 2 from Sir Adrian Boult - it was from a market stall, the disc was excellent but someone (or thing) had been chewing the sleeve.

[vandermolen]

It wasn't me; out of nearly 400 LPs less than half-a-dozen are RCA of any seal and I have no knowledge of pressings. Previn's RVW 4 was the first new RCA disc I bought and I only collected the rest of the cycle on CD. The first RCA LP I bought was Rachmaninov 2 from Sir Adrian Boult - it was from a market stall, the disc was excellent but someone (or thing) had been chewing the sleeve.

Interesting to know. 

[LKB]

I described what SACD is and why the marketing was BS.  Sony and SACD fanboys put very much stock in the fact that DSD has a 2.8224 MHz sampling rate.  That has as much benefit on sound as an ounce of pure snake oil.

And yet, l can hear the difference in an SACD, as have others.

I should disclose that my hearing is not exactly within the normal parameters for an adult male, having tested up to 21khz. It's possible that for most people some aural training may be necessary to detect the upgrade. Some investigations have suggested this:

https://www.aes.org/e-lib/browse.cfm?elib=18296

In any event, they're stll available. From the DG website, for instance...

https://www.deutschegrammophon.com/en/catalogue/products/sacd-the-ultimate-audio-experience-9344

[Todd]

And yet, l can hear the difference in an SACD, as have others.

Of course you can.  The recordings were remastered.  SACD is not needed to reveal the difference in remastering.

Die-hard audiophiles are just as prone to salesmanship as anyone else.

[LKB]

But, l am not an audiophile. I've never owned any such equipment.

Also, the SACDs l own are dual-layer, and the difference between the standard layer and the SACD layer is immediately apparent.

[Todd]

Also, the SACDs l own are dual-layer, and the difference between the standard layer and the SACD layer is immediately apparent.

If there are any immediately apparent differences, they are due to the use of different masterings.  If the RCA recordings you referred to previously were originally analog, then SACD is a complete sham.  There is no such thing as high-resolution analog.  If you are not an audiophile, you write like one for some unknown reason, and you believe the now irrelevant and outdated hype just like an audiophile.  SACD is dead.  At least go with vinyl. 

[Dry Brett Kavanaugh]

Once again, l feel the urge to encourage those with SACD capability to seek out the RCA Red Seal SACD's. They are worth the effort, l assure you.

Any particular albums you like?