In Reply to: Most SACD adopters compared SACD with CD playback by established CDPs posted by DkB on February 20, 2002 at 22:20:35:
mastering quality!!!My main musical rig for fidelity is my analog rig ... which sounds wonderful - but with crappy software it can sound compressed and dreadfull too the point that cd is better. And remember - i prefer analog to sacd ... given that software is not the determining factor.
Therefore - one of the biggest advantages i see in the new hi-rez formats is renewed attention to mastering quality. The mastering quality of new sacd releases would be an improvement on most regular cd's.
BUT ... take a properly mastered 16/44 disk (huge numbers exist), play it on a very capable system & cdp - and you get NO PCM glare & hardness. (funny - i consider the sony's to have considerably to much glare & hardness - i consider them 'screamers' not 'singers')
I still consider sacd a worthwhile improvement(although i don't buy into the most recent 'concept' of MC) - to be sure - but if all my CD's were re-mastered in proper fashion - the gap would not be as big as you have proposed - and glare & hardness are not 'showstoppers' anymore!!!
Come to think of it - many cd's are being remasted as we speak - and they will come cheap - and with NO GLARE.
TBone
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- your forgetting about the common denominator ... - TBone 07:14:03 02/21/02 (1)
- Glaring perception - DkB 23:10:14 02/28/02 (0)
- Right on the nose! - malinowsky 10:51:50 02/21/02 (0)