In Reply to: IAR Digital Format Article posted by Bob Wilcox on March 9, 2002 at 05:38:17:
What a lot of words from a paranoid writer! The writer lost all credibility right away with:QUOTE
Which brings up an important warning. Never compare the sound of the CD layer on an SACD with the DSD layer. Industry insiders tell us that the DSD/SACD consumer mastering facilities deliberately corrupt the sound of the 16/44.1 CD layer, say by truncating bits from the submitted master tape to make it sound like a crude 12 bit recording instead of its true 16 bit self -- the reason of course being to make the new DSD/SACD format sound artificially better than the classic CD format, so that you'll rush out to buy all the titles being reissued on DSD/SACD, even though you already own them on CD. Record labels were shocked to find that the CD layer put on the SACD by the mastering facility sounded much worse than their own straight CD (and much worse than the master tape they had submitted) of this same material.
END QUOTEWhat a load of rubbish! Every mastering and recording engineer and editor I know working with SACD spends a great deal of time making sure the CD layer is the best-possible down-conversion from the DSD source. Often the time spent in this process is more than any other part of the SACD mastering process. We supply the disc manufacturer with the pcm master for the CD layer. It is used to directly transfer to the CD layer glass master. We do a side-by-side comparison of the end product, measuring AND listening, to the pcm source. It must match or it is not approved.
From that paragraph on the article goes rapidly downhill with many errors, misunderstandings and mis-statements, and such an obvious prejudiced agenda, that it's difficult to believe anything the writer has to say.
This is a great example of the power of the internet being abused.
Best Regards,Michael Bishop
Recording Engineer
Telarc International
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Re: This one lost credibility with - Michael Bishop 12:17:29 03/09/02 (13)
- Question - waVeman 22:27:08 03/09/02 (7)
- Re: Question - Michael Bishop 16:59:21 03/10/02 (3)
- Thank you - waVeman 01:10:04 03/11/02 (0)
- Nobody 'hates' PCM...scsid MCP ylohnu sih raeh ot lleh ni mih nioj lliw I ro natas morf em evas!!! - Methos 20:36:01 03/11/02 (0)
- Thks Michael! - TheNewOrder 19:20:32 03/10/02 (0)
- Re: Dear Watson... - Patrick UITZ 03:13:30 03/10/02 (1)
- Positive wa V e. nt - Patrick UITZ 08:08:02 03/11/02 (0)
- I really hope so Pat. N/T - waVeman 15:42:22 03/10/02 (0)
- Not new subject. - SimonTJU 16:27:41 03/09/02 (2)
- Second that - Joel_Waterman 00:43:22 03/10/02 (0)
- Re: Second that, me to - Peter 03:57:11 03/11/02 (0)
- Simon that has been my experience too. Just the opposite of Moncrief's ridiculous assertions. nt - theob 16:54:16 03/09/02 (0)
- Thanks to an insider who can repudiate the rubbish that Moncrief is alleging. nt - theob 13:42:17 03/09/02 (0)