Hi-Rez Highway

New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology.

Return to Hi-Rez Highway


Message Sort: Post Order or Asylum Reverse Threaded

What is the benefit of SACD if the original master is not DSD ?

216.13.33.64

Posted on November 29, 2000 at 12:36:08
Pierre


 
What is the benefit of SACD if the original master is not DSD ?

Like most of the SACD titles that are available right now, most of them are probably from 48 khz PCM recordings.

 

Hide full thread outline!
    ...
Re: What is the benefit of SACD if the original master is not DSD ?, posted on November 29, 2000 at 14:54:56
Jim Treanor


 
I believe that most of the Sony SACD's (certainly those drawn from the pre-CD era) are actually from the analog master tapes...much better than the PCM derivatives.

--Jim

 

Re: What is the benefit of SACD if the original master is not DSD ?, posted on November 29, 2000 at 18:56:07
What is the benefit of SACD if the original master is not DSD ?

Like most of the SACD titles that are available right now, most of them are probably
from 48 khz PCM recordings.

Most of the 50 SACDs that I own are derived from analog masters;
even some of the more recent recordings such as those from Audio-
quest and Water lily Acoustics were done with analog tape.

Nevertheless, I think you question is a good one. A few months
ago with great anticipation I purchased the Delos hybrid Mahler
2nd Symphony. I enjoy this recording very much; it is of very high
quality. But it seemed to fall short of my expectations of what
I thought was a DSD recording.

On closely reading the liner notes I discovered that, unlike
the Telarc SACDs discs (so far) which are originally recorded with the
DSD technology, the Delos disc is an original DDD recording,
which is then transferred (unsampled, down sampled, upsampled;
whatever) to the SACD format. That may explain a lot.
The Delos recording does not have, what I have found, to be the
very clear and audible benefits of DSD, such as unparalleled
separation and micro dynamics. These qualities are more evident on
the SACD layer but marginally so.

So, I guess a question that I have is if a recording was originally
"done right" in DDD what benefits are derived from transferring it
to SACD? This question is important to me now that I see that
Telarc plans to release some of its early classical DDD recordings,
such as "Firebird" as hybrid SACDs.

I'm still gaining experience and learning about all this,
but at this point it appears to me that modern analog recordings
such as those from Water Lily Acoustics and Audioquest and older
analog recordings such as many from Columbia and the awesome
disc Mobile Fidelity disc really bloom when transferred to
SACD. Likewise, original DSD recordings, such as those from
Telarc, in my opinion, benefit immensely from the
DSD technology. On the other hand DDD recordings have evolved
over the years to be very good, especially at their best.
Perhaps, there may not be much to "unlock" in a DDD to DSD
transfer.

So as good as the Delos Mahler 2nd sounds, and I am very happy
to have added it to my collection, this is one SACD I wish was
not dual layered. I wish it was SACD only. I have two very
related reasons. 1) The symphony is almost 85 minutes long.
This length can easily be accommodated on a single two channel
SACD (such as the Ormandy Verdi Requiem SACD on Columbia,
but can not be accommodated on a CD. In order to accommodate the
CD time limitation the symphony had to be spread over two discs,
the 24 minute 1st movement on disc one, the rest of the symphony
on the second disc. (I realize that Mahler called for a break
between the first and second movements, but this can be done with
the pause button or a SACD only disc could actually accommodate
the 5 minute pause on a single disc for purists). 2) Spreading the
symphony over two discs bumped the price for the set from about
$21 to $39 all to have "benefit" of a dual layered disc.

Robert C. Lang


 

Re: What is the benefit of SACD if the original master is not DSD ?, posted on November 29, 2000 at 20:13:31
Rodney Gold


 
You will get closer to the original master than PCM , PCM requires an AD stage (Essentially EXACTLY the same as the SACD DSD signal which is basically the raw noise shaped output of that AD) , however SACD will play back that signal (which is directly stored on the disc) with a bit of filtering , PCM requires that that signal is decimated and *stored* as a decimated (dropped sample) DSD output and then it requires a DA stage with oversampling , filtering and further noise shaping.
Thus pcm requires a few more steps to playback.
Think of it like this , DSD is the raw meat , you can process it many ways , simply cook it etc , PCM is already processed and one has less options what to do with it thereafter.
DSD is a great archival method for the aforementioned reasons,
However it is NOT as simple as all that , but to go any deeper into this requires a lot of time and that you know a bit about AD convertors etc , there is a VERY good article on conversion at headwize.com which I suggest you read , it explains things rather well


Rodney Gold

 

Yes, there are benefits!, posted on November 30, 2000 at 01:41:05
Jake


 
For the last 10 years or so, studio recordings have already been done in 20 or 24 bit quality with a sampling rate that is considerably higher than the 44.1 Khz you get with red book CDs. In fact, this already *is* a giant resolution increase over standard CDs (the stored information has been more than tripled!) Before SACD, these recordings had to be downsampled to fit on a CD. Although the CDs would certainly benefit from the higher resolution of the master tapes, it would still be 16/44.1 when it arrived in our living rooms.
Transferred to DSD, these 20 or 24 bit masters now can be heard in their original high resolution quality. Always remember, only few of us do know if DSD is an audible improvement over a true 24/192 recording - reviews of those who have heard true 24 bit resolution tapes generally are as enthusiastic about it as those who heard DSD.

Jake

 

More Analog Sound, posted on December 1, 2000 at 02:04:36
DkB


 
I chose to buy an SACD player when all I heard on SACD were analog transfers from 50s and 60s classical/jazz recordings.

Despite tape hiss and tape degradation, these re-masters sounded so much more alive with realistic presence THAN direct digital 96/24 bit derived CDs recorded in the last 2 years with the latest digital technology.

Direct DSD recordings on SACD bring the format to totally more impressive heights, but I would buy the format just for SACDs from analog masters.

High Res PCM masters reveal more detail, solidity, and lack of grundge on transfer to SACD, like the impressive Mahler 2nd Symphony from Delos.

However, for PCM recordings not proper done, their grunge and harshness will be unveiled in all its ugliness on SACD. One example of this that I find disturbing is the Bernard Hermann Film Scores SACD, which has not lost its digital hashiness on SACD, although it sounds more detailed, open, and solid on SACD. In such cases, what you suggest would apply: that there is no substantial benefit gained from an SACD transfer. Just like why I do not like digital recordings released on vinyl, like the early GRP Lps.


 

Most of them are from analog tape!, posted on December 3, 2000 at 13:04:07
Bob Olhsson


 
Most modern pop recordings that would interest audiophiles are made on analog tape. Classical music, prior to DSD and high sample-rate recording, was mostly done direct to 44.1kHz. 16 or 20 bit with little or no signal processing. Most current film and TV is done 48kHz. x 20bit or 24 bit.

 

Page processed in 0.016 seconds.