LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  July 2006

ARSCLIST July 2006

Subject:

Re: Longevity

From:

phillip holmes <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 4 Jul 2006 15:26:29 -0500

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (99 lines)

It's pretty easy to tell which SACDs are mastered from 16/44.  The CD layer 
sounds the same as the SACD layer.  I've had a couple that sounded almost 
identical on both layers.  The sound was good though.  On the other hand, 
with the RCA SACD classical reissue series, it is easy to tell a difference 
between the CD and SACD layers, although the difference is only evident on 
violins, flutes, trumpets, cymbals and the like.  I'd say the sound is 
different because I can more easily tell the difference between the high 
instruments.  The most egregious distortion of MP3 is making everything way 
up there sound like it was cut from the same cloth.  Like there's a guy with 
a tank of compressed air that releases some when the trumpet plays and when 
the triangle sounds and when a guitar does a power chord, etc..  Further, 
even if you didn't have access to the SACD layer, the CD layer is worlds 
better than the previous issues which were all issued from later generation 
tapes (speaking of RCA specifically).  If SACD and DVDA helps improve work 
stations and mastering techniques through the industry, even if SACD and 
DVDA fail completely, then the byproduct (better mastering) will have been 
worth it to me.
Which brings to mind one of the benefits from the quadraphonic debacle.  The 
first generation of transistor equipment used for mastering was kind of 
blah, like all the other first generation of transistor stuff.  When the 
mastering houses upgraded for cutting quad LPs, they had to use better 
electronics to cut the very high frequencies (carrier).  This also led to 
rapid developments in line contact styli (a huge improvement over conical to 
my ears).  I think the poor reputation of '70s vinyl was the ultra thin 
pressings and vinyl with too much regrind in it.  On top of that, engineers 
were going microphone crazy.  How many tracks do you need to record an 
orchestra?  The more microphones in use, the more possibility for weird 
sound.  And the more tracks you squeeze on a head, the worse the sound.
Phillip
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tuesday, July 04, 2006 6:46 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Longevity


> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> -- 
>> Don Cox
>> [log in to unmask]
>
> 

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager