|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
195.86.126.19
In Reply to: Re: What is the origin of this recording? posted by azure on April 3, 2006 at 18:20:18:
It's not a 'bootleg'.Why wonder? You can download it and listen to it.
DSD fidelity? How's that possible? It was mixed using 24/96 PCM
Follow Ups:
Sorry Frank it was a bit "tongue-in-check not strictly literal
SACD gets the rolls Royce mix
DVD-A gets yesterdays Quad....ha haanyway I did iniatially mis read the mix comment
yes Guthrie probably did n't have Protools with the SACD plugin back then...I think it was a choice of which format had the potential for better fidelity
I read back when the 30th Ann SACD was released that Guthrie chose SACD/DSD because he believed it was the "better" format..Since then better DSD consoles have emerged
if you prefer the bootleg over the legit copy thats great ..each to their own
"I think it was a choice of which format had the potential for better fidelity
I read back when the 30th Ann SACD was released that Guthrie chose SACD/DSD because he believed it was the "better" format.."Well if you believe the marketing hype...
His statement became worthlass when it was exposed later that he used pcm for the mix.The choice had nothing to do with sonic quality.
Commercial motives did.The protools DSD plugin only converts pcm into dsd as the last step in the process.
Don't hold your breath about 'new' dsd workstations.
Capabilities are way too limited for pure DSD operation.
( probably wouldn't say it was marketing hype, the question poped up why SACD and a honest reply.. I think in Absolute Sound or StereophileThen again,it releases like the Eighty Eight Jazz albums out of tokyo if you really want to make comparisons where music is recorded mixed etc DSD
It sounds like you have an axe to grind against DSD and SACD whats the go?
It just amuses me that ppl are scrounging around for a bootleg to prop a format ha ha .. when there are more and more titles being released on SACD hybrid compared to true DVD-A... as for DualDisc ..its crap... the so-called CD flip side doesn't play on my iMac unlike hybrids... and many of the DualDiscs don't have true Advanced Resolution
I actually went out of my way and got the Talking Head DVD-As rather than the US Dualdiscs
So do you support crap like DualDisc ??? what gives... great marketing there
DVD A is near dead.
sa-cd is slighly less near dead.If sa-cd is very dead then 64*fs DSD is finished too.
Hires PCM is very much alive. Regardless of the state of DVD Audio.
Bring on the next generation hires formats.
NT
FrankI have only compared the HD DSD stereo programme with the 1979 Stereo MFSL Half Speed Master Lp.
and, have not compared the SACD version with the 1994 PCM remaster RBCD nor original PCM master for RBCD..
So I cannot make any comparisons here with the previous CD releases nor surround vs. quad mix.There is a bit of controversy out there regarding the source of the stereo program... many people have reported that there is little difference between the earlier CD, and many have not acknowledged which previous version they have compared it to.
My question is Did the stereo HD and CD layer programmes originate from the original analog stereo master or from one of the PCM masters
At worst they have sourced it from the first 80s PCM master
At best it may have been sourced from the 1994 PCM remaster
Ideally it did come from the original analog masterIf the stereo program was only a "DSD remaster" from the original analog master i gather unlike the surround mix: PCM would not have been involved.....is this true Frank?
It appears you know more about the actual mastering then I
Seriously I would like your thoughts on this.....
"My question is Did the stereo HD and CD layer programmes originate from the original analog stereo master or from one of the PCM mastersAt worst they have sourced it from the first 80s PCM master
At best it may have been sourced from the 1994 PCM remaster
Ideally it did come from the original analog master"There is a fourth option:
A new mix from the analog multitracks.I'nm not shure about the origin of the stereo tracks.
I have read on SH forum that the PCM remaster was used for the 20th anniversary release.The G. multichannel remix is sourced from the analog multitracks.
These where transferred to 24/96 PCM digital multitrack.
Mixed in PCM and mastered in PCM and converted to DSD.
(Conversion to DSD is usually the last step in the mastering proces)This was explained in an article in a pro audio mag.
The quad mix is said to be sourced from the analog quad master.
That's pretty certain.Before makin any comment on this 'bootleg' make shure you have heard it in a good system.
It's less polished than the G. mc mix. But far more involving.
This mix really draws you in.
Reverb and other effects are beautifull layered and spread out across the channels.
Frank
As has been repeatedly stated and proven over and over again, both the 2ch and 5.1 mixes on the DSOTM SACD were taken from the original analog tapes, and kept completely in the analog domain until the DSD transfer was done.Guthrie even built some plate reverb units so he wouldn't have to run the tapes through a digital reverb. All of this has been documented in REAL pro (and consumer) audio magazines, as opposed to the made-up sources you are claiming.
I know you have an axe to grind over DSD and SACD, but I can't understand why you feel compelled to lie to support your position.
I've got about 20 DualDiscs. On top of that I have Talking Heads "Brick" too (makes almost 30).Thay all have DVD-A layer. And they all play fine in my DVD-A player. The CDs layers all play fine too -- where I want them -- i.e. for the car CD changer.
It seems that it is you who has the "axe" to grind for some strange reason.
Not just my experience... there are many reports for so-called CD layer NOT being read on computer CD drives, and portable devices...Some could say you have only purchased DualDiscs with the Advanced Resolution
BTW I have the Talking Heads DVD-As [not DualDiscs] from uk and they are bloody good.....
A fine rematering ...of classic albums
Whats the point its second rate material
its an illegal bootleg not endorsed by PF management nor EMI
you can't confirm -verify the original source
and even if it was from the original quad master it has tempered with for the .1 equation
2nd generation behind the tapes Guthrie used for the 5.1 mix
Guthrie mixed from analog tapes not PCM for the SACDjust "sour grapes"because PF and Guthrie chose SACD over DVD-A
because PF chose Guthrie over Parsons ...get on with it...
Naturally DVD-A offers higher 24bit sonic specs but as Guthrie said DSD was chosen for its closer to analog fidelity.
No "harshness" nor PCM "ringing" with the SACD
So your opinion is worthless.I don't have to care about the original source.
The 'second rate material' sound quality is far better than the sa-cd.
and it's the original quad mix.We could argue about the actual mix as these are diffrent. I prefer the original quad mix.
For your information G. mixed in 24/96 pcm after the analog tapes where transferred to digital tracks.
The .1 channel is just an additional channel.
The other channels are not tampered with. So you're wrong about this.
(The center channel is used instead of the .1 channel.
This mistake isn't bothering me as my center channel is full range anyway. It can also be switched off.)Sour grapes indeed, paid for a lame (too conservative) mc mix from G. with the dsd sonic filter creating the typical tame, flat sa-cd sound.
> > The center channel is used instead of the .1 channel.
This mistake isn't bothering me as my center channel is full range anyway. It can also be switched off. < <Frank, I'm just curious what is meant here. When I play the Parson's quad mix on DVD-A (superb b.t.w.), there's nothing coming out of the centre on my 5.1 system (as I would expect since it's the 'quad' mix), and the 0.1 is the additional LFE info. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something?
I believe I did actually hear the .1 stuff coming through the center channel.I could have been fooled by the very holographic soundfield from this mix.
Yeah its so good it has to be "ripped off" over the net....
and NO ONE CAN VErIFY the source....
I would n't pay for it either ha ha
Even Parson said it was crap because he was rushed
EMI commisssioned it not PF
G did it how PF intended .....like I said its free over net if they haven;t taken it down....A real seller hey...
> Yeah its so good it has to be "ripped off" over the net....
> and NO ONE CAN VErIFY the source....I will survive without verifying.
I'm satisfied just by listening to it.
No need to verify in order to enjoy.> I would n't pay for it either ha ha
> > and NO ONE CAN VErIFY the source.... < <
I gather there was also a quad mix of Wish you were her" Does anyone know who did it?Regardless I hope the [suppose to be] Surround version of WYWH is released on in Adv Res DualDisc and hybrid SA-CD..stop all this fff...ing bickering
Seriously considering the praise and support for the "Quad Mix" and support for the 2003 surround version I don't understand why a company like say Mobile fidelity a speciality label... doesn't get the licence to release both on a DVD-A ....Could you fit both the surround and quad version in 96/24 Adv Res... if there was nothing else on it....
I noticed there are "multichannel" only SACDs out there why can't you have only those mixes on one DVD-A > ????????
Parson's did the quad mix.Even though you "can" find this, none of the issues in the wild are from the quad masters. They are either from 8 track or LP. The conversions to DTS CD sound decient for what your getting.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: