|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
198.179.173.2
In Reply to: RE: Bad news for Neil posted by mbnx01 on June 27, 2014 at 12:09:57
I have not done any comparison of 16-bit Vs 24-bit version of the same recording. But the SACD/XRCDs that I have compared with their regular CD version (separate disc, not hybrid versions), the mastering seems to have made the difference to making the music sound more cleaner and smoother. Most XRCDs using the JVC process, though expensive seems to be well worth. An example in my collection is the XRCD for Cannonball Adderly's Things Are Getting Better. I found the XRCD version in our local library and was stumped by the quality of the sound and music. I have the SACD version of the same and the XRCD sounded a but more "airy". The SACD was more smoother, but a bit darker.
Maybe it is time for the music industry to move on from Hi-Rez to Hi-Qual-Master and maintain it at that.
Follow Ups:
Maybe it is time for the music industry to move on from Hi-Rez to Hi-Qual-Master and maintain it at that.
But that would leave the manufacturers of new audio gear out of the picture. They want to sell us new equipment, new formats, and have us buy the same ole albums yet again..... 'cuz there's hardly anything new worth buying. ;-)
I have not found that SACDs or DVD-As sound any better with my relatively low level of DACs, than a good CD. The mastering is the most important part of the sound.
I do have several rock SACDs which are a pointless rip-off: Kinks, Boston, etc.
Some companies seemed to be selling the format rather than the content which is a bit fraudulent in my book. Much like a Blu ray movie with a Dolby Digital soundtrack, which Lions Gate, etc. have done.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: