[arnett]

I wonder if Gabriel’s security was really a full digital recording (although I know the original CD had a ‘digital recording’ banner on it).

I have security on the recent redbook remaster, and on the track ‘I have the touch’ there is definite tape hiss and analog ‘bleed through’ due to tape mis-storage. In the first quiet section, you can hear the vocals coming, echoing louder and louder as they approach -- much like before the start of a song on an LP. You just don’t get this ‘bleed through’ effect with a digital recording -- regardless of the date. the rest of the cuts, however, do not exhibit these tape problems.

regardless, the security CD sounds pretty warm, smooth, and analog to me. I agree that the state-of-the-art digital recording back in 1982 was 16-bit 44.1/48K. I also have the police’s synchronicity SACD (1983) and that sounds like an early digital recording: the sound goes to mush during transient passages and has a general ‘glare’ effect. I simply don’t hear that with the security CD.

I try to avoid 80s music on hi-rez formats (even though I like most of it).

 

[arnett]

Quote:

Originally posted by Dusty Chalk When I become a big famous rock star, I'm going to eschew compression as much as I can (except in exaggerated manners), and re-introduce the concept of dynamics of an almost classical nature back into pop/rock music.

to ‘compress or not to compress’ © ® is not left up to the musician. it's the record companies ordering the mastering engineers to 'make it loud.' or, perhaps, just incompetent mastering engineers.

unfortunately, musicians have very little say in how their records sound. unless they produce their own CDs, that is.

 

[Calanctus]

To reply to the original poster's question: based on my experience, recent DSD recordings done explicitly for SACD sound best. Next are recent PCM recordings at higher resolution (more than 50 KHz). Older recordings reissued on SACD are not much better, if any, than CD.

This is based only on my own ears. I know I won't be buying reissue recordings on the basis of sound quality...I'll only get them if it's a great performance or great album at a price no higher than the standard CD version.

XRCD, on the other hand, has some excellent reissues of older recordings. I've got an old recording of 'Thus spake Zarathustra' on XRCD that is really sweet and powerful.

 

[Dusty Chalk]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter so dusty and rick, you think the "security" remaster is probably a result of either remixing the original 16/44 tracks using modern equipment so bits are not lost, and then dithering the results using modern techniques, or simply running it through a processor (perhaps a high-end tube based processor of some kind?)?

You got me. I share your confusion in your original question. Here's a couple others that bother me:

Marillion - Misplaced Childhood -- originally DDD, sounded good to me, not sure why they remastered it, but got it anyway for the bonus tracks.

Mike Oldfield - Amarok -- originally entirely digital, when remastered to HDCD, somehow they lost or gained a minute (I forget which). What?!?!? I A/B'd the two (especially at the very end) -- could not tell the difference. Quote:

Originally posted by arnett to ‘compress or not to compress’ © ® is not left up to the musician. it's the record companies ordering the mastering engineers to 'make it loud.' or, perhaps, just incompetent mastering engineers. unfortunately, musicians have very little say in how their records sound. unless they produce their own CDs, that is.

Yeah, and that's why I probably won't ever be a big famous rock star. But the only way I'll sign is if I have veto privilege over everything. In fact, I probably won't even need a record deal, just distribution. And I'll probably at least co-produce my own albums -- I have lots of thoughts on the subject. (Actually, since I'm a DIY musician, I'll probably completely produce my own album.)

 

[Moguta]

Quote:

Originally posted by redshifter you're confusing the speed at which samples are decoded and the audible frequency range. dvd-a has 24 bit samples (24 number wordlength samples) which are sampled at a rate of 192khz per second. this has nothing to do with ultra-high frequency sounds (like a dog whistle).

Uh, you are the one who sounds confused. At each sampling, a 24-bit amplitude value is stored. Higher bit depths only help to reduce quantization noise (which comes from the nature of digital audio: a discrete approximation of continuous analog values) and thereby expands the useable dynamic range.

192 000 samples per second means that it can reproduce sound frequencies up to 96 000 Hz, since you need at least two amplitude samples (crest & trough) to reproduce a single frequency.

A higher "speed at which samples are decoded" has to do everything with the player, not the storage medium. And the only advantage of faster disc reading is the oversampling which pushes digitial-to-analog distortion into inaudible ranges. Most standard CD players do a fine job of that.

Unless you're telling me that DVD-A stores oversampling in the medium, rather than letting the DAC do it? If so, that's a real redundant waste of space.

 

[redshifter]

Quote:

Originally posted by Moguta Uh, you are the one who sounds confused. At each sampling, a 24-bit amplitude value is stored. Higher bit depths only help to reduce quantization noise (which comes from the nature of digital audio: a discrete approximation of continuous analog values) and thereby expands the useable dynamic range. 192 000 samples per second means that it can reproduce sound frequencies up to 96 000 Hz, since you need at least two amplitude samples (crest & trough) to reproduce a single frequency. A higher "speed at which samples are decoded" has to do everything with the player, not the storage medium. And the only advantage of faster disc reading is the oversampling which pushes digitial-to-analog distortion into inaudible ranges. Most standard CD players do a fine job of that. Unless you're telling me that DVD-A stores oversampling in the medium, rather than letting the DAC do it? If so, that's a real redundant waste of space.

i see. didn't mean to ruffle your feathers, man. there is that theory that frequencies above 20khz have an effect on audible frequencies by "beating on" them. of course everything in the recording and reproduction chain would have to capture and reproduce them as well.