# Scheherazade - Reiner CSO - SACD 2006 or 2014?



## jim1961 (Dec 22, 2016)

This one has been released twice on SACD, Has anyone compared the two?


----------



## Triplets (Sep 4, 2014)

I haven't personally heard the newer one. I read one audiophile who thought the newer one was better, naturally. I have the 2006 and at least 2 redbook versions, and it's hard to imagine improving on the 2006


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

Also the one from RCA/BMG includes Stravinsky's "Song of the Nightingale" not on the AP release.


----------



## pcnog11 (Nov 14, 2016)

Triplets said:


> I haven't personally heard the newer one. I read one audiophile who thought the newer one was better, naturally. I have the 2006 and at least 2 redbook versions, and it's hard to imagine improving on the 2006


I read the same thing, it is amazing SACD keeps improving. I have the 2006 version.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

I'm sure they both derive from the exact same transfer of the exact same tape. If there's a difference, it's in the degree of noise reduction added in post.


----------



## Pugg (Aug 8, 2014)

bigshot said:


> I'm sure they both derive from the exact same transfer of the exact same tape. If there's a difference, it's in the degree of noise reduction added in post.


Here's is your right answer.


----------



## jegreenwood (Dec 25, 2015)

The 2004 SACD was remastered at Soundmirror.

The 2014 (Analogue Productions) release was remastered at Sterling Sound.

The 2004 release used the three channel analog masters (and multi-channel set-ups will have music from the front three speakers). The 201 release is two channel only. I'm not sure if they started with a three channel analog master and mixed it down or a two channel analog master.

Edit - I was wrong - the AP includes a three channel mix. First time they've done more than two channels to my knowledge.


----------



## bigshot (Nov 22, 2011)

The new one is probably just a 2 channel fold down right off the earlier SACD. The original tape master was 3 channel. They also may have used a 7 1/2 IPS home reel to reel tape as the master for the new one. I've seen companies claim their "audiophile" releases are mastered from that. But a 7 1/2 IPS dub tape off a sub-master off a master can't be better than a transfer mastered off the original session tape unless the tape has deteriorated... which in this case it clearly hasn't.

I'd avoid the 2 channel one and just get the 3 channel.


----------

