Post by efercost July 21, 2012 (11 of 25)
|
|
You also mentioned 45RPM, do you mean the audiophile 180/200gram 45RPM LPs or commercial 45RPM singles?
I mentioned the commercial 45RPM singles. I don't know any 180/200gram 45RPM. ;-)
|
|
|
|
|
|
efercost said:
Would old analog recordings from 60's until 80's sound better on SACD than CD? Or would the sound quality be subtle? I ask this because some remasters from singers/bands from this age on CD doesn't really sound good.
Depends on the quality of master tape, transparency of A/DSD converter used for the digital transfer, and skills of an engineer restoring the recording.
|
|
|
Post by DSD July 21, 2012 (13 of 25)
|
|
efercost said:
I mentioned the commercial 45RPM singles. I don't know any 180/200gram 45RPM. ;-)
I haven't heard 7" 45RPM singles since I was a preteen. Beginning in the 1970's I've owned a lot of audiophile 45RPM LPs, mostly "direct to disc" which on my equipment do usually sound superior to most other formats including SACD and come very close to the realism of 2 track reel to reel.
45RPM LPs are sonically superior to 33RPM but have shorter playing times so a 2 sided album usually takes up 4 sides, and modern 180/200gram 45RPM LPs cost around $50, a little too pricey for me.
Anyway I would never expect CD to sound better than 33RPM much less the higher fidelity 45RPM. SACD is another matter and often surpasses the vinyl versions as played on a good turntable. It all comes down to the skills of the remastering engineer, I trust the audiophile SACD labels the most, see my small list in post 9.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arnaldo said:
Adding to your comments, SQ also depends greatly on whether the transfers are straight analog to DSD. On the other end of the scale, there are those sourced from 96 kHz/24 Bit PCM copies and then sweetened at will before additional D/A/D conversions, AKA, the Master-Sucker-Vacuum-Noise-Removal and Re-Un-Re-Mastering process.
Totally agree, my point is that even when making something as straightforward and elegant as a direct analog to DSD transfer, an engineer can still mess things up by selecting a non-transparent DSD converter.
http://www.stevehoffman.tv/forums/showpost.php?p=4596856&postcount=18
"For us, in that situation the Grimm killed the Meitner. It sounded exactly like the analog, both tone wise and ambiance wise."
|
|
|
|
|
|
AmonRa said:
The biggest complaint about Meyer & Moran test was that most recordings they used were old reissues, which naturally were not better than CDs, nobody out of 150 listeners could hear a difference.
hahahaha - 'old reissues,' complete bullshit, jeez. Like Romneyspeak.
RTF paper and the followup info.
As if we would do the work we did using old Elvis or Bob/Wilma Fine CDs.
I will copy the Cheskys, just for yuks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
david moran said:
hahahaha - 'old reissues,' complete bullshit, jeez. Like Romneyspeak.
RTF paper and the followup info.
As if we would do the work we did using old Elvis or Bob/Wilma Fine CDs.
I will copy the Cheskys, just for yuks.
Hi David,
That was said in jest, with a reference to the complaints people on these pages shouted at the time that of course no one could hear a difference if there were analog-era remasters included, since these clearly can't sound any better than regular CDs...
At the same time (and here's the sarcasm of that post), the very same people here keep clamoring for ever new SACD-reissues of those same analog-era recordings, claiming that to make them sound so much better...
I don't think more than maybe one other person here on this forum besides AmonRa has actually read your paper (or noticed the paradox in people's positions here), which doesn't prevent anyone from having a loud opinion on it (or, rather, on its purposely distorted message).
Those who've read it well know what the test recordings were, and a link to further information & that follow-up clarification has been posted on these pages, but no one cares to go beyond the misinformation they seem to prefer for putdown purposes. A phenomenon not unique to this forum, of course, as you, too, note.
All the best,
PT
|
|
|
|
|
|
Thanks much -- dig it and roger all
Would love to see real followup in this crowd of better-controlled blind test using DSD only (or whatever is most blessed these days). But I think I know what the odds of that happening are.
Thanks for thoughtful and nonattacking response!
|
|
|
Post by AmonRa August 19, 2012 (18 of 25)
|
|
Polarius T to the rescue! More later (word limit...)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Polarius T said:
That was said in jest, with a reference to the complaints people on these pages shouted at the time that of course no one could hear a difference if there were analog-era remasters included, since these clearly can't sound any better than regular CDs...
It's not that clear as quality of analog recordings varies tremendously and the number of analog recordings used in the M&M study was simply to small to give any conclusive answer in this regard.
I don't know of any scientific study analyzing the audibility of high resolution tape transfers.
In this situation we just have to rely on our ears.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You have to wonder about this site ...
Intelligent posters like Arnaldo are banned, ... leaving Poltergeist, Moron and the Scandinavian troglobite to run amok.
|
|
