Schu Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 I have been rather unimpressed with most sacd's I have... they seem overly shrill and flat sounding. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 I think that if you actually watch all of the YouTube video posted above by Brad, you'll see that DSD has no advantage over 24/48 DVD format, and Mark Waldrep mentions that "no one is using DSD for production", rather they are using 24/48 data streams that are being converted to DSD after the fact. I can attest to that with the five hybrid multi-channel Elton John SACDs that I have - they all have been compressed: http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/year?artist=Elton+John&album=SACD Chris Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris A Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) By the way...Waldrep's comments on the DR database were actually not correct: he talks about the beginning and end of the tracks being zero (implying that this affects its dynamic range ratings), whereas if he actually had read what the algorithm is calculating, he'd realize that the DR ratings are actually crest factor: average-to-peak, and not zero-to-peak. In fact, the DR database algorithm chooses the second-highest peak measured in its integrating interval, not the highest peak. But there is no compensation for the 1/f amplitude vs. frequency curve that you see with all performed music, so that what you're actually looking at is the low frequency dynamic range of the tracks, and not some composite measure that gives equal credit to the equal-loudness-but-decreasing-amplitude midrange and high frequencies, but can be similarly compressed unequally by multi-band compressors. Chris Edited March 26, 2016 by Chris A Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJIann Posted March 26, 2016 Share Posted March 26, 2016 (edited) I find this whole discussion real interesting, especially the video. What I am basically after in HD audio (in addition to future recordings taking advantage of the HD format as the lecturer discussed) is someone taking the original master tapes used for vinyl and creating a 24-96 (or better) HD version that captures the recording with full dynamic range or something close, so that I have a digital recording that sounds as good as my vinyl without the pops and clicks. Now mind you, I listen to my vinyl as well, but like to mostly play my music off a server run by Foobar (and I have good equipment across the board from DAC to Klipsch Heritage speakers). Many of the HDTracks catalogs have been developed from master tapes (or as early generation as possible if the masters don't exist) and many have not. And, given that I have a 4TB server, I like to collect different versions and compare the sound (to my ears) and DR. The HDTracks Doors catalog for instance is quite good, but does not really sound better than the Steve Hoffman masters CDs, and the DR range is about the same. Tom Petty also used his master tapes to develop the HDTracks versions and they sound great. There are several other examples. So, it really does, in my opinion, take some investigating to figure out if it's worth spending the coin on HDTracks, Pono or other versions of recordings. If they really did use master tapes and create something true to the original recording without compression and a lot of tinkering in the remaster, then it is worth the money and they've earned it. Edited March 26, 2016 by TJIann Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.