As I recall, the fourth "D" in a 4D recording meant that the mixing console was all digital; not much of a virtue in the mid-90s as the best analog consoles had very clean wide range sound.
If you're speaking about Blu-Ray audio disks, they are capable of high def sound with a single disk able to contain many hours of material, (like the entire Wagner's Ring on a single disc).
Sent from my iPhone
> On Apr 3, 2015, at 8:02 PM, Tom Fine <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> This appears to be some kind of digital fraud.
> Look at the original CD details:
> The album was recorded in 1992. Exactly what high-resolution digital recording system existed in 1992? DGG was using a Studer system that operated at most at 48kHz/16-bit. There is an outside possibility that they were running analog tape backups, but I don't think so based on articles I've read about this "4D" thing they were touting.
> The MOST RESOLUTION POSSIBLE from this recording is whatever was the original recording medium. Up-converting it DOES NOT ADD MORE RESOLUTION. It may change the sound in some way that some people prefer, some sort of euphony involved with conversion to DSD and DSD-to-analog, perhaps.
> This sort of thing makes the Japanese reissue guys look a little batty. The other one that's really odd is a series called something like "BluDisc" that seems to suggest the CDs are made on the same equipment as BluRay discs and thus have "more precise" pits and lands. I've seen no scientific presentations or papers anywhere suggesting this offers any audible improvements. For what it's worth, I was loaned one of these CDs of a Mercury album, apparently made from the same digital master or a bit-perfect copy, as the CDs produced by the plant in Germany. As I suspected, no analysis software I could find revealed ANY DIFFERENCE in the CDs, and they sounded identical, to my ears. More importantly, they both ripped bit-identical files using dBPowerAmp's CD ripper with Accurip. I will say that it's possible that these "BluDics" are easier to read and thus perhaps produce fewer corrected errors in some inferior CD players.
> It's also worth reading the review included on the ArkivMusic descriptor page linked above. This is one of those DGG way-distant recordings where the orchestra sounds like it's a football field away from the mics. That whole "4D" process was never really detailed by DGG, it was apparently just a full integration of DGG recording techniques with Studer digital equipment, and was the subject of some mocking, especially by British hi-fi and pro-audio magazines in the 90s. To my ears, I don't care what digital system they were using as much as I care that everything sounds like it was recorded across a large space from the music, or in an echo chamber. Very few DGG recording sound very detailed or intimate, to my ears. They make the listener a spectator from a distance rather than a participant in the music.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jim Long" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, April 03, 2015 5:52 PM
> Subject: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
>> I get promotional e-mails from www.elusivedisc.com, mostly about vinyl.
>> The prices for the 45-rpm issues (about $50) are beyond my ability to pay
>> 99% of the time. Now I see they are offering Esoteric SACD reissues for
>> $65! See <
>> Has anyone been impressed by this (and other) Esoteric SACD reissues?