Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › DVD-A and SACD may not be audibly distinguishable from 16/44.1
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

DVD-A and SACD may not be audibly distinguishable from 16/44.1 - Page 5

post #61 of 66
They need to do more than actualizing the potential of the technology. They need to change their philosophy of remastering.
post #62 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by silverrain View Post
I've played with lots of different "stuff" and have found that (to me) HDCD is the true "sweet spot" for best overall bang-for-the-buck sound quality.
Differences I can HEAR.
I've changed my big rigs to HDCD now.
Players, recorders, all of it.
Xrcd, xrcd2 and especially k2hd suppose to be as good as sacd and DVD-A without the extreem highs problem.
But they are on to something. These formats all use superieur mastering techniques! You can play them on a regular cdplayer.

Also, the quality of the playback equipment is very important. if you play on a cheap player and a cheap amp, it is more likely that you won't hear much of a difference, when you go a few steps up, it becomes very apperent, also the sacd extreem highs problem!

Unless they list the full list of equipment and media used, it's worthless.

LOL, their high end cdplayer can only do 108 db.........right..........somehow i think most on head-fi think of something else when speaking about high end gear. Some really high end have 140db.

I bet they used 50 dollar cables and call those high end as well.

I think it's better to use headphones for things like this. Then you can scrap accoustics out of the equation. Accoustics can destroy any apperent difference very quickly.

Subtle differences are much easier to pick up with a good headphone then with speakers.
post #63 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by soundboy View Post
Full bandwidth? You mean like up to 50K Hz?

By referencing Columbia, do you mean Sony? Sony SACDs, no matter what you think of the company itself, are generally acknowledged as some of the best available. For SACD issues of old titles, some of these could be the "definitive" digital version.

As for the Rolling Stones, I believe there were 22 albums released on SACD. Initially, there were all hybrid SACD packaged in digipaks without any SACD designation on the packaging. Later on, these were replaced by DSD-remastered regular CD versions housed in regular jewel cases. While both the hybrid SACD and the regular CD versions carried the same catalog numbers and SKU numbers, you can readily tell which is which by how they are packaged.
But the best speakers go only as high as 40-50khz. max.


Theoretically it's even 100khz for sacd.

The only thing i don't hear any difference is converting wave into flac.
post #64 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by tourmaline View Post
But the best speakers go only as high as 40-50khz. max. Theoretically it's even 100khz for sacd.
That is totally absurd. Do you have any idea what the frequencies you're talking about sound like? You're talking about angels dancing on the heads of pins!

See ya
Steve
post #65 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectaculartimes View Post
They need to do more than actualizing the potential of the technology. They need to change their philosophy of remastering.
If they did that, people would realize that redbook sounds as good as they could ever hope for. They'd also have trouble selling us the "new and improved" version of Dark Side of the Moon for the umpteenth time. Incompetence is good for business.

See ya
Steve
post #66 of 66
Quote:
Originally Posted by spectaculartimes View Post
one of my favorite albums of all time is the incredibly densely-layered Remain in Light by Talking Heads. I have this album on vinyl, CD, and the remastered CD/DVD DualDisc. IMO the DVD DualDisc bests the older CD and the CD flip side, and I don't believe it is primarily a function of mastering
That album was completely remixed for the remaster. The ability to stack up layers of sound is a LOT different now than it was in the days of the 24 track 2 inch tape back when that album was first released. I'm sure there were a bunch of bouncedowns to combine tracks on the original mix. With digital mixing, there's no need to do that, but in analogue, it introduces noise.

Your example is ALL a function of remixing/remastering.

See ya
Steve
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Dedicated Source Components
Head-Fi.org › Forums › Equipment Forums › Dedicated Source Components › DVD-A and SACD may not be audibly distinguishable from 16/44.1