|
|
|
Post by chenzl April 20, 2012 (12 of 24)
|
|
DSD said:
LivyII you may be onto something, I remember a reply in either Stereophile or the Absolute Sound magazine from Bob Katz of Chesky back at the beginning of SACD (around 1999) to a reader who asked what was to become of all the 16/44.1kHz masters if SACD replaces CD? Mr. Katz said something like 16/44.1kHz masters would sound better on SACD since commercial CDs don't offer the full 16 bit resolution the format is capable of, instead it is closer 13 or 14 bits, thus one could finally hear 16 bit masters in their full resolution.
Yes, just like those early digital Telarc Soundstream 16/50 khz recordings, the sound opens up on SACD. I would love to have those excellent early digital Montreal/Dutiot/St.Eustuche recordings transfer to SACD by Esoteric. I am sure the sound on SACD would even be more fantastic. Of cos, like everyone else, my complaint is the super price-tag :(
|
|
|
Post by Claude April 20, 2012 (13 of 24)
|
|
SACD is so revealing, you can count every bit of those recordings while listening.
|
|
|
Post by LivyII April 20, 2012 (14 of 24)
|
|
Arnaldo said:
Some people think that by performing unnecessary D/A/D conversions, Esoteric's magic wand can somehow cast evil spirits out of an original 44.1/16 recording. One might as well believe in Voodoo, UFOs and Harry Potter...
Harry Potter is a real book and real character. UFO's I have not personally experienced, but the likelyhood that we are the only sentient life in this universe of millions of planets is extremely, extremely remote, and as for voodoo, well, let's take a little trip to down to the Big Easy and the Louisiana bayou...after the sun goes down, you might start believing in voodoo, too...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tell me something naysayers. Have you ever bought a remastering of a cd that had been done in the 80s with later technology and have you ever felt that the newer remastering was somehow better? I know I have. If you have (and be honest), then your comments don't hold water regarding SACD revealing the same as the original. Or how about newer equipment? Newer equipment used to upgrade sound in later remasterings can yield greater returns.
|
|
|
Post by Claude April 20, 2012 (16 of 24)
|
|
Hi-rez remastering of 16/44 material can sound better, but only if the original mastering was somehow flawed. In that case, even remastering it in 16/44 (which nobody does nowadays) would make it sound better.
But apart from that, transferring 16/44 recordings to a format which has a higher resolution is pointless. Buy an upsampling DAC, which will do that with all of your CDs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Claude said:
Hi-rez remastering of 16/44 material can sound better, but only if the original mastering was somehow flawed. In that case, even remastering it in 16/44 (which nobody does nowadays) would make it sound better.
But apart from that, transferring 16/44 recordings to a format which has a higher resolution is pointless. Buy an upsampling DAC, which will do that with all of your CDs.
That's suggesting that all 16/44 early recorders were and are really no different than later recorders (I just don't buy that). Quality of machines improves through greater advances in materials used and newer DACs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
That's suggesting that all 16/44 early recorders were and are really no different than later recorders (I just don't buy that). Quality of machines improves through greater advances in materials used and newer DACs.
So, you agree it was originally recorded in digital using a crappy early 1980s 16/44 recorder. So that's the master. So how are you going to re-record it now? With your time machine? tro lo lol lo lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
canonical said:
So, you agree it was originally recorded in digital using a crappy early 1980s 16/44 recorder. So that's the master. So how are you going to re-record it now? With your time machine? tro lo lol lo lol
No, that's saying that early digital recorders are what they were and while digital is certainly the common denominator, other factors will certainly change what is made of them in later years.
And as for being the troll, you do that well enough on your own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
flyingdutchman said:
No, that's saying that early digital recorders are what they were and while digital is certainly the common denominator, other factors will certainly change what is made of them in later years.
And as for being the troll, you do that well enough on your own.
In other words, you have no idea what you are talking about.
|
|
