Post by Allen February 15, 2015 (1 of 18)
|
|
So this is NOT a multi-channel sacd?
Then what is the point?
|
|
|
Post by fausto K February 15, 2015 (2 of 18)
|
|
Allen said:
So this is NOT a multi-channel sacd?
Then what is the point?
SACD does not equal multi-channel
|
|
|
Post by Allen February 15, 2015 (3 of 18)
|
|
fausto K said:
SACD does not equal multi-channel
I know, I was under the impression it would be a mch release from a different thread, however.
|
|
|
Post by rammiepie February 15, 2015 (4 of 18)
|
|
Allen said:
I know, I was under the impression it would be a mch release from a different thread, however.
Watch the restored BD~V and revel in the ambience!
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa February 15, 2015 (5 of 18)
|
|
fausto K said:
SACD does not equal multi-channel
Stereo only old tape transfers have no point, CD would be cheaper.
There is absolutely no high resolution content on tapes. period. It is hogwash and marketing.
|
|
|
Post by fausto K February 15, 2015 (6 of 18)
|
|
AmonRa said:
Stereo only old tape transfers have no point, CD would be cheaper.
There is absolutely no high resolution content on tapes. period. It is hogwash and marketing.
We know you keep repeating this and your dogmatic scientism is not winning you any followers here.
The fact (*) is that a stereo-only SACD such as The Grateful Dead: Workingman's Dead sounds way better than its CD counterpart, and this is just an example --
So something done at the remastering stage of that SACD must have enabled them to extract something more out of the tapes than what the remaster engineers did when they remastered the CD at the end of the 90s, presumably from same tapes. Now this *may* have to do with the remastering per se (undue compression with the CD), not with any content on the tape that can't be captured on a redbook, but can on a SACD. But no matter, the SACD sounds better, so "stereo only old tape transfers" do have a point, and are not just "hogwash and marketing", if only because modern CDs sound way too loud because of compressed dynamics.
*notice that I say 'fact', as in "intersubjectively agreed objective fact", not as in "scientific fact", and we could philosophise no end about what is more "factual" and objective.
|
|
|
|
|
|
fausto K said:
SACD does not equal multi-channel
+1
|
|
|
|
|
|
AmonRa said:
Stereo only old tape transfers have no point, CD would be cheaper.
There is absolutely no high resolution content on tapes. period. It is hogwash and marketing.
-1. I will keep buying them regardless of your nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa February 16, 2015 (9 of 18)
|
|
fausto K said:
We know you keep repeating this and your dogmatic scientism is not winning you any followers here. etc
My purpose is not to win friends here. Rather to remind people about hard measurable facts and to be aware of all kinds of snake oil and BS floating around in audio circles.
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa February 16, 2015 (10 of 18)
|
|
samayoeruorandajin said:
-1. I will keep buying them regardless of your nonsense.
Please point out one measurement where tape from sixties beats 16/44.1 PCM.
|
|
