The lie of the hi-rez formats
Nov 16, 2004 at 5:56 PM Post #62 of 89
Rather than compile a list of specific bad hi-rez recordings, we should push for a labelling scheme similar in concept to the "AAD", "ADD", "DDD" system used for CDs.

It's quite analogous to the current situation; people want to know more about how their hi-rez recordings were produced.

I remember when CDs were young, people actually looked for the "DDD" logo -- many felt CDs were substandard if they weren't completely produced digitally. It's ironic that these days many people (certainly myself) now consider a recording marked "AAD" as superior and likely more desirable than one marked "DDD."
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 6:07 PM Post #63 of 89
I'm not sure that labeling is enough. The record companies will go out of their way to confuse the labels. Furthermore, I don't think that letting them produce substandard high res formats with a label is the answer. I think they shouldn't be allowed to do that at all. If it's not a real high res master from an analog source, then it should be sold as a CD not SACD. I realize that this may be wishful thinking on my part, but that's what I think should happen.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 6:20 PM Post #64 of 89
The problem is that the general public will equate SACD with hi-rez regardless of any labeling system. Of course, this is assuming the general public cares for hi-rez at all; "CD quality" is generally considered as pinnicle of audio reproduction technology. And we all know there some horrible sounding CDs out there.

A labeling system will help but it's not guarantee. sa-cd.net has a list of direct-to-DSD recordings on SACD but that doesn't mean these titles will sound any better than those from analog sources.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 6:23 PM Post #65 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake
If it's not a real high res master from an analog source, then it should be sold as a CD not SACD. I realize that this may be wishful thinking on my part, but that's what I think should happen.


But then the question would be "what is a high-res master"? You'd get some benefit from taking a 44.1kHz/24 bit master recording and releasing it as SACD, but some would complain that such a master is not high-res enough (this may have been the case with the Alison Krauss SACD Stereophile analyzed). What about 88.1kHz/16 bit masters (popular in the 80s) -- is this high-res?

About the only thing people would agree on is that 44-48kHz/16 bit masters shouldn't be released as high-res albums. But what about remastered versions? There's still some potential for benefit there. This is going to be a huge issue with remastered 80s and early 90s music.

I think the labels should just give us the information and let consumers decide. People can vote with their wallets for what they want.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 6:45 PM Post #66 of 89
Quote:

I think the labels should just give us the information and let consumers decide. People can vote with their wallets for what they want.


I agree.

Interestingly, Alison Krauss SACDs are always highly-rated in terms of perforance and sonics. Many were disappointed that her upcoming album will not have a SACD version....as yet.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 10:13 PM Post #67 of 89
BTW, this problem exists with DVD-Audio as well. There is no real standard for what constitutes a DVD-Audio disc, it can be 24/48, 24/96, 24/192. The Bjork Vespertine disc is "only" 24/48, is that "hi-rez enough"? To me, it doesn't sound all that different from the regular CD. But again, you get the multi-channel mix on there, so for people who see the new formats as delivery vehicles for multi-channel, not hi-resolution stereo, they are getting what they want.

I still disagree with people who think the discovery that this *single SACD* might be something less than hi-rez means the whole format is worthless, and all the other releases are a rip-off. One need only buy a few and take a listen. SACD, when done right can be OUTSTANDING. bifcake, you seem to be the most upset here, yet you don't own a single SACD!
tongue.gif


Still we are always at the mercy of the remastering engineer on a hi-rez title just like we are with any "digitally remastered" Redbook CD, that just can't be helped. A well-mastered CD will sound better than a badly-mastered SACD/DVD-A, that's just the way the cookie crumbles. It just means that people need to do their homework before investing in a hi-rez title, just like you would before plunking down your green for a CD with a "digitally remastered" sticker. Best bet is to visit www.stevehoffman.tv forums, they have TONS of good info on both Redbook and hi-rez remasters.

But, IME, the hit-to-miss ratio of remastered hi-rez titles is much higher than that for remastered CDs. Generally, you tend to get the beter mastering engineers working in hi-rez, plus the expanded capabilities of the new formats doesn't hurt either. We could also get just as mad at any Redbook CD remaster that was a downgrade sonically from the original issue and there are plenty of examples of that. We could also get angry to discover that our new Redbook remastered CD does not use the real first generation master tapes, but third or fourth-generation degraded dubs/safeties, but there's no little code or identification system on regular CDs to indicate the tape sources they used either. Is that also deceptive? Maybe.
 
Nov 16, 2004 at 10:39 PM Post #68 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by markl
bifcake, you seem to be the most upset here, yet you don't own a single SACD!
tongue.gif






You're right. I don't own a single SACD and it seems I am the one who's most upset here. I'm upset not because I'm directly affected by this. I'm upset because:

a) We, as consumers are being cheated yet again
b) Nobody does anything about it
c) Consumers take it in stride and even try to justify the offending companies.

As far as the rest of it goes, I think that anything less than 24/96 should be considered high res, thus should not be issued on high res formats. The issues should be mastered from the original tape.
 
Nov 17, 2004 at 4:09 AM Post #69 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by NeilPeart
I've begun the search for un-locked DVD-A media.
<<SNIP>>
EDIT: I just bought PowerDVD 6 Deluxe and it does indeed allow un-molested DVD-A digital out to my DAC1!
smily_headphones1.gif



Is there a list of such recordings? If not, perhaps it's time to start one in the music section. So far the rule of the thumb was that classical ones are not locked. The advantage of unlocked DVD-As is twofold: you can listen them with an external DAC, and you can back them up. The list of (commercial) programs that can write DVD-A grows by the day. If you dog eats such DVD-A, you won't have to shell for it again.
smily_headphones1.gif


Also, does anyone know if locked and encrypted are equivalent? Can it be encrypted but not locked as far digital playback is concerned?
 
Nov 17, 2004 at 8:19 AM Post #70 of 89
Thats not the only 'scandal' going on in the high-rez audio world. Engineers have also been told to deliberately master a cd to clip more than the sacd version to make the sacd version sound better than it is.
eek.gif
I can't be bothered to trawl through google for proof now, but believe me its true.
 
Nov 19, 2004 at 5:40 AM Post #72 of 89
Engineers are in no position to rebel. The masters are the ones with the checkbook.
 
Nov 20, 2004 at 3:58 PM Post #74 of 89
Quote:

Originally Posted by bifcake
It's amazing to me that you guys don't mind being lied to by the record companies.


I don't have the Norah Jones SACD -- and I don't know if any of the few SACDs I own are the same -- but I am outraged!!
mad.gif
very_evil_smiley.gif
mad.gif
 
Nov 20, 2004 at 6:40 PM Post #75 of 89
Are we just going to sit here and spank our collective monkeys or are we going to do something about it?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top