Post by DSD April 8, 2006 (31 of 53)
|
|
zeus said:
Who's "we"? People here are free to enjoy the stereo program, multichannel program or both. I'm glad to have the capability to listen to both (though on separate systems) and make up my own mind which discs work best where. Maybe you should make an effort to widen YOUR options. If however you want to wage a silly stereo-only crusade, take it elsewhere.
Stephen that is precisely what I was telling "The Flying Dutchman" as he seems to think we do not matter, I was just making him aware we are bigger than he thinks. And to point out that SACDs have both a 2 channel Stereo and Mult-Channel high-resolution program and to shortchange either one is WRONG! He disagrees and feels only the Multi-channel matters.
The Flying Dutchman said "Well, we have some over at steve hoffman's site saying the remasterings aren't that good, but of course we have most of the people complaining who only listen in 2 channel. Message for you 2 channel people: this was made in quad and released in quad to take advantage of the possibilities that SACD affords. Personally, I don't care what it sounds like in 2 channel."
The Flying Dutchman then said " The multichannel is what most here have been waiting for. 2 channel is nice, but 4 channel is best here."
From this post you can see how closed-minded the Flying Dutchman is. I tolerate all who want to enjoy SACD, you talking to the wrong person. Go back and read the posts from the beginning. I am open-minded.
Teresa
|
|
|
Post by zeus April 8, 2006 (32 of 53)
|
|
DSD said:
Stephen that is precisely what I was telling "The Flying Dutchman" as he seems to think we do not matter, I was just making him aware we are bigger than he thinks. And to point out that SACDs have both a 2 channel Stereo and Mult-Channel high-resolution program and to shortchange either one is WRONG! He disagrees and feels only the Multi-channel matters.
It's been obvious for some time (at least since DSOTM) that the main reason for the remaster of the bulk of these old pop titles for SA-CD is the multichannel mix. You can either carp against this reality (frankly you've left it a bit late!) or avail yourself of their efforts by listening to it as they anticipated. Or simply don't buy them. You seem to be assuming that the people behind these reissues haven't done their homework and know precisely the demographic they're targeting.
|
|
|
Post by DSD April 8, 2006 (33 of 53)
|
|
zeus said:
It's been obvious for some time (at least since DSOTM) that the main reason for the remaster of the bulk of these old pop titles for SA-CD is the multichannel mix. You can either carp against this reality (frankly you've left it a bit late!) or avail yourself of their efforts by listening to it as they anticipated. Or simply don't buy them. You seem to be assuming that the people behind these reissues haven't done their homework and know precisely the demographic they're targeting.
SACDs have two high resolution layers: Stereo and Multi-channel. Why make half of your customers mad by not doing one or the other programs correctly. It doesn't make sense to me at all, sorry.
The worst example I know of is Norah Jones: Come Away With Me in which a new multi-channel mix was done from the original master to DSD and for the high resolution 2 channel layer they used the 16 Bit 44.1kHz PCM copy they used to make the CD. Surely you can this is not right!
Teresa
|
|
|
Post by raffells April 8, 2006 (34 of 53)
|
|
I suggest we have an argument about who is argumentitive or not.
Then after that mummy and Daddy will come and take the zappers and remote controls away from you and tuck you in to bed so people who want to discuss sacd can get some sleep.
Then tomorrow you can all wake up and start again saying " You said that she said that you said " ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Meanwhile I will suggest that the five Old moodys titles be released in mono on each of the five channels available on surround on one disc So everyone can be happy .NOT....Well Its more sensible than some of whats be written today.....Oh yes it is / Oh no it Isnt.... Suppose someone will come up with "I only wanted four discs" Ah well That will be tomorrow and the discs will still sound the same...
Oh I do hope the people who decide on what discs or even whether to release SACds are not reading this site....Come on Zeus havent you got a magic rubber or something...
Maybe someone can actually discuss whats on the discs themselves! Na I was only jokin.again..D
|
|
|
Post by zeus April 8, 2006 (35 of 53)
|
|
DSD said:
It doesn't make sense to me at all, sorry.
I know it doesn't.
|
|
|
Post by zeus April 8, 2006 (36 of 53)
|
|
raffells said:
Maybe someone can actually discuss whats on the discs themselves! Na I was only jokin.again..D
Well, it would be great if someone posted some reviews. I'm sure there's plenty of interest.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm still waiting on the postal worker.
Drat! Didn't come today. Hope for Monday.
|
|
|
Post by Claude April 9, 2006 (38 of 53)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
zenbret said:
Any deteriorating original Cr O2 magnetic originals should be transfered channel by channel unmixed into PCM 24 bit 192K and DSD single bit code. One day someone will be able to put them togehter for an analogue-like waveform.
Not sure I understand. Why both? (Both PCM 24-bit 192-K *and* DSD.)
What do you mean by "put them together"?
Doesn't DSD-encoding already do this (create an analog-like wave-form)?
|
|
|
Post by Johnno April 19, 2006 (40 of 53)
|
|
DSD said:
SACDs have two high resolution layers: Stereo and Multi-channel. Why make half of your customers mad by not doing one or the other programs correctly. It doesn't make sense to me at all, sorry.
The worst example I know of is Norah Jones: Come Away With Me in which a new multi-channel mix was done from the original master to DSD and for the high resolution 2 channel layer they used the 16 Bit 44.1kHz PCM copy they used to make the CD. Surely you can this is not right!
Teresa
I agree with you entirely, Teresa. I recently bought both the Pentatone Shostakovich symphonies 1 and 6 (Jarowski) and symphony 11 (Pletnev) and am relatively disappointed with the sound of both through my stereo-only system, having previously heard both in multichannel at a friend's place. However, thinking it might be me or the system, I then played the Tchaikovsky Suite No. 3/Stravinsky "Fairy's Kiss" Divertimento (Jarowski again) -- and immediately knew there was nothihg wrong with either! The sound was superb - spacious yet with impact too and clean, with a wonderfully realistic acoustic, whereas the others often sounded bleached and lacking inner clarity and focus for much of the time in stereo. In mutichannel, the sound of both discs had a scale and openness missing in the stereo mix.
I can only hope that this isn't a trend where emphasis is being placed on optimising the multichannel mix at the expense of the stereo version.
|
|
