jh901 wrote: > This would be terrific if the primary driver of digital sound quality > was the bitrate, etc. There are so many 16/44 PCM "redbook" CDs with > better sound quality that any hi-res available simply because the modern > day mastering engineer shoots for "loudness" and doesn't understand > dynamic range and proper, natural EQ. As it pertains to the DSD trapped > on SACDs we have, for example, Steve Hoffman's mastering of the CCR > catalog (Analogue Productions). Amazing doesn't begin to describe it. > We have Kevin Gray's new mastering of several Holly Cole albums and the > Norah Jones catalog (Analogue Productions). There 50 Blue Note label > albums (so far) mastered by Hoffman/Gray also on Analogue Productions). > There are more examples, but the bottom line is that the mastering work > remains misunderstood, ignored, underestimated....you name it. Go for > the mastering and not the resolution. I've learned this lesson over the > past several years. > > Not every truth is convenient or easy to accept. > > And now...back on topic!
Agreed. However that was not what I asked, which is when a high resolution, good sounding and well produced master of a recording is available why do you seem to prefer the SACD version over the 24bit/88.2 or 96kHz files version? In other words disc playback instead of streamed playback. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ralphpnj's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=10827 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=96407 _______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
