Archimago wrote: > Yeah, I think the review is generally "fair" - no audiophile worship of > the awesome 1-bit technology :-). The DAC also looks very nice! > > However, I would say that his choice of music would not lend to > demonstrate DSD's "superiority" at all (in fact, likely quite the > opposite!). > > Peter Gabriel's "So" I believe was recorded in PCM and the SACD has a > very strong low-pass filter at ~20-21kHz. The 2012 24/48 release I bet > would sound better to most people side-by-side plus it's got 3 bonus > tracks! > > Fagen's "The Nightfly" is well known to have been recorded in > 16-bit/50kHz with 3M's digital tape system! Therefore, if you convert > that to DSD, you gain nothing in terms of better dynamic range, and in > fact likely worsened/colored the sound through the PCM --> DSD > conversion. The "definitive" version would be the 24/48 DVD release from > 2007. Now that would be a fascinating comparison - 24/48 vs. SACD with > the tester knowing that technically 24/48 should be significantly > superior due to nature of the source material! > > The "Immersion" Blu-Ray of "Dark Side Of The Moon" in 24/96 from 2011 is > also superior to the 2003 30th Anniversary SACD IMO. > > Notice the trend here... Since the decline of SACD, better hi-res PCM > remasters have been released which renders the old SACD versions moot. > > BTW, as for Nick Drake - he died in 1974, the recordings on that album > are from the late 60's to early 70's. I'm pretty sure standard 16/44 > would suffice to capture all that's needed... (I've heard that album in > SACD - not blown away.) > > One final point: > "You cant blame them file sizes are large (DSoTM is 1.8Gb) and they > are presumably still trying to pull customers into the hi-res PCM space, > itself a niche within a niche. This renders DSD a niche (super hi-res) > within a niche (hi-res) within a niche (digital audio)." > > DSD (specifically DSD64 since this was what he listened to) is IMO > categorically NOT "super hi-res". At best it's around 24/88... Funny > (annoying!) how these folks insist on exaggeration the capabilities of > DSD.
The fact that he "clearly" identified the trend for better masters (at least for those willing to read it that way) are actually the main reason I posted this here. I'm blisfully unaware of the exact recording + mastering techniques used for various records, but even in my modest system I can quite easily hear the difference between better masters and what I would consider flawed ones. That doesn't mean they are actually measurably any worse, just that I don't like them, which in the end is what it's all about. This is also the reason why I'm not too unhappy about this Hi-Res trend: with some luck we can have better masters released in these formats ;) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ bakker_be's Profile: http://forums.slimdevices.com/member.php?userid=30369 View this thread: http://forums.slimdevices.com/showthread.php?t=98482
_______________________________________________ audiophiles mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/mailman/listinfo/audiophiles
