That's open to debate. Many people say all that needs to be captured is captured in the
"low-resolution" CD format (which is actually very HIGH resolution compared the
quickly-becoming-standard formats of iTunes/MP3). I think it's very debatable whether the majority
of people could hear a difference in the same 2-channel mix in both formats in a true ABX test. I've
never read of such a test, just a bunch of subjectivity on the topic.
Also, Goran brought up an important point. Some or perhaps many SACD players do not output "pure"
DSD digital but rather convert to PCM and then D-A. And, worse, many SACD's are made by converting a
PCM file into DSD after all the workstation work is done. The reason being that, for instance in
remixing a 24-track tape, the engineer is more likely to want to work in the Protools format he's
used to. I think but do not know for a fact that companies like SADIE and Pyramix now make
many-channel all-DSD workstations but I believe they are expensive and few studios will go that
route for a sinking format. I think but do not know for a fact that most new (ie not reissue/remix)
SACD's are made all-DSD from the start.
Bottom line, if one wanted to shed some science light on this rather than the myriad opinions
floating around the internet and this mailing list, set up a true ABX test with equally good
playback equipment for each format using the same 2-channel source mastered directly to both
formats. I am not sure the great majority of ears could tell any difference if the CD were done with
as much care as the SACD and the CD playback equipment was equal to the quality of the SACD playback
equipment. When you get to thinking about it, it's not the easiest test to set up, which is likely
why no one's done it, beyond the fact that the emporer may well have no clothes.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Don Cox" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Monday, July 03, 2006 10:24 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Longevity
> On 03/07/06, Tom Fine wrote:
>> My own opinion is that some SACD discs sound really wonderful, and
>> some multi-channel mixes are worthwhile but overall it's not worth a
>> lot of extra expense (particularly since it's a submerging format) and
>> there wouldn't even have been a window of opportunity if there were
>> better CD mastering and remastering engineers out there. And, since
>> the same guys also do SACD, the same percentage of SACD releases are
>> really excellent (ie small percentage).
> But however good the mastering engineer, he will not be able to get the
> same quality on CD as he can get on SACD.
>> One man's opinion, etc.
> Don Cox
> [log in to unmask]