These "sharper focus" CDs _MIGHT_ have some use in a car, because everything gets jostled around so
much and the laser _MIGHT_ stand a better chance of getting an error-free read for the buffer memory
if the pits and lands are super-sharp, but I'd want to see some science on that. And, even if it
were the case, exactly what car rides quietly enough on the road to hear and difference with
classical music? Especially on U.S. roads, which are varying degrees of wheel-ripping minefields,
especially after this winter.
-- Tom Fine
----- Original Message -----
From: "Tom Fine" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 8:38 AM
Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
> That's right, like Bob said.
> As I said, it may be beneficial playing back in a poor-quality CD machine, but a good CD player in
> good physical condition shouldn't have trouble reading pits and lands on ordinary CDs (and indeed
> CDR media too). I am very skeptical of the claim that "sharper" pits and lands make any difference
> in normal-world playback of audio CDs. There _MAY_ be an advantage in using a universal player
> like those made by Oppo, Marantz and other, only in that the laser in those players is built for a
> finer beam and tighter focus so as to read DVD, SACD and BluRay media. I have not seen any science
> indicating this actually leads to less error-corrected recovery of CD data.
> In a modern context, your best bet is to rip your CDs to a hard drive, using reliable software
> like dBPowerAmp with Accurip. Assuming your DAC is designed to reclock and de-jitter the stream
> coming from your computer, you're in clover, no more caring about the vagueries of spinning
> physical media subject to everything from dust or fingerprints on the disc surface to how humidity
> and temp are effecting laser focus, to if the belt-and-gear driven tray opened and closed
> perfectly, etc.
> -- Tom Fine
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Robert L. Berkman" <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2015 1:52 AM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] SACD "surprise"
>>I think Tom Fine was referring to Blu-Spec (now Blu-Spec2), which is a redbook Japanese CD
>>product, somewhat along the lines of SHM CD’s. Not Blue Ray or Blue Ray/Audio.
>> Bob Berkman
>>> On Apr 3, 2015, at 9:51 PM, Dave Burnham <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 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?