 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
This is not a troll; this is ignorance:
Having just found this forum, it seems to be very pro-SACD. Oddly enough I don't see slams on DVD-A much though. Seems fair enough so far. I don't have the luxury of being able to audition both technologies fairly, so I am reading up a little.I am curious about some discussion of "distortion" of high frequencies in DSD. I have heard the argument that there are some added energies at high frequencies that have folded over into the audible range as a result of filtering. This seems to my amateur brain as the only argument against DSD that should be a concern. Is it real?
If so, does the resulting "coloration" of SACD just sound different than the "coloration" of DVD-A? Do we have a tubes vs. SS debate here?
if I heard/read it right:1. Most posters here think SACD is more inherently "audiophile" than DVD-A. In fact, two-channel is a strong preference and since some recordings of DVD-A lack 24/192 two-channel, they are less attractive than SACD.
2. Watermarking is generally believed to be audible but perhaps because it is new, it has only been heard by one. Very strong anti-DVD_A argument even though one poster says SACD is watermarked now.
3. Multichannel is about as ugly a word as DVD-A and is associated with HT peons. Few here own DVD players and few have "TVs".
4. Some posters here are vilified but allowed to continue posting. Many of the posters have really nasty grudges going! Most replies were arguments that didn't answer my questions.Thank you one and all, I have learned a lot. I clearly don't belong here for several reasons: I watch movies, like multichannel music and haven't yet figured out which format I want. I have a high-end system with five full-range speakers, sub and video monitor that I set up specifically to be able to play multichannel music when it finally got here.
I believe stereo is better than mono and multichannel is better than stereo. Despite that, I have many treasured classical performances in horribly recorded mono sound that may never be bettered.
Right now the battlefield is a mess. Sony has put some highly reviewed players out there but now there are some multi-format players on the market too. Watermarking is a nasty spectre but still unproven (either audible or protective). Recordings are coming out in both formats at an increasing pace. Pundits that say either format is DEAD are ignoring these new releases. More than 20% of SACDs are multichannel and of course all of DVD-As.
I would have to buy an SACD player to play those discs. I already have a DVD-V player that I can listen to multichannel DVD-A recordings on. So far, I have been impressed with the performances and sound. Clearly better even in the DD (or DTS) tracks than redbook CD. At the moment more interesting classical recordings are coming out on DVD-A but at some point I will probably buy a multi-format player. For now I'm on the sidelines but cheating a little.
Perhaps SACD will survive as an audiophile format but I imagine DVD-A will survive just because of the HT crowd (and their 30 million DVD-V players). Either way I get multichannel music.
Thank you for your postings. For the one who asked my sources about high frequency wrapping (due to shaping/filtering) I must say I don't have the references. They were published in articles in magazines I didn't keep. But it came up more than once. Of course what matters is how the music sounds and as I said, I am unable to properly audition SACD and DVD-A very easily still. Audiophile stores are history.
Regarding your points:1) Personally, I feel multichannel done right will be superior in most cases. However, for example, taking an old, mono Louis Armstrong recording and making it multichannel may not be a good idea. I do think SACD's mandate of a two-channel mix is a better approach. With DVD-A you may be stuck with having the player "mix-down" to two channels.
2) Pretty much everybody agrees that watermarking is bad. SACD's built-in copy protection does not watermark the audio. Its copy protection is contained outside the audible information, in another area of the disc. A label could conceivably watermark the audio of its SACDs but it's not been done yet (as far as anyone knows). Let's hope the labels remain satisfied with the current copy protection scheme for SACD.
3) I think you are mistaken. My feeling is that there is only a small (but vocal) minority here who would never consider multichannel. I have listened to multichannel SACD in my HT system (temporary setup) and, for Classical pieces, was amazed by its ability to produce a soundstage the size of a complete orchestra. My two-channel system can't approach that. Multichannel has great potential. Also, anyone here who feels the HT crowd is unsophisticated need only look to a good Internet AV forum. I'm also a videophile. The forum I frequent has technical discussion on par with here but its participants tend to be MUCH, MUCH more mature than the ones here. I have yet to see the kind of ad hominem attacks over there that I routinely see here.
4) See above. Unfortunately it comes with the territory. Some amount of noise filtering required.
As to which sounds better than the other, I'm not sure if anyone has a definitive answer to that question. I'm not aware of any demonstrations to date that have created a really good environment for A/B testing. My personal experiences with DVD-A (both in sound quality and human interface) have not been very positive. I personally prefer the implementation of SACD. And to me its sound comes closer to the real thing than anything I've heard so far.
I recognize that the most vocal posters can tend to make the majority seem rather roudy and rude. My appologies to what I assume are the majority of polite folks.I too enjoy, in particular, the Home Theater Forum which is very interesting and well mannered. I was being faceteous about everyone denigrating the joe-six-pack-home-theater-in-a-box characature. Could there be an image farther remote from the dedicated extremist audiophile?! And the irony is that the market is more driven by that segment . . .
"1. Most posters here think SACD is more inherently "audiophile" than DVD-A. In fact, two-channel is a strong preference and since some recordings of DVD-A lack 24/192 two-channel, they are less attractive than SACD."Most lack 24/192 two-channel.
"2. Watermarking is generally believed to be audible but perhaps because it is new, it has only been heard by one. Very strong anti-DVD_A argument even though one poster says SACD is watermarked now."
No evidence of signal watermarking on SACD. SACDs use physical watermarking.
"3. Multichannel is about as ugly a word as DVD-A and is associated with HT peons. Few here own DVD players and few have "TVs"."
SACD supports both stereo-only users and multichannel users. There's no penalty for either as all channels are the same resolution.
"At the moment more interesting classical recordings are coming out on DVD-A"
Debatable.
Stephen Best
Canberra, Australia
NT
Here are some attempts at answers.I think the SACD format has more interest at this point for several reasons. Primarily, Sony came out of the gate with some excellent players that were ecstatically received in the audiophile press. There are no players on the DVD-A side that are even attempting to achieve this quality level. There are supposed to be shortly, but now it is over 2 years since Sony's SCD-1.
On the software side, eccentric though the selection is, there is quite a bit more on the SACD side. And it is all the same bit resolution. On DVD-A, you have varying resolutions along with a bogus "inaudible" watermark in the analog output.
Speaking for myself, as a 2-channel audiophile, there is nothing on the hardware side, and just a little on the software side to interest me in DVD-A. But I am quite pleased with SACDs, which I buy weekly.
As far as high frequency noise in SACD, yes it exists. Is it audible? It is not supposed to be. If you read reports on this forum, you will find only a miniscule minority who report problems with high frequencies. But the best way to evaluate this is to listen for yourself.
Finally, audio engineer Tony Faulker indeed stated in an interview that DSD and 24/192 PCM were both very good but different from each other. Due to the lack of a real audiophile player, plus the paucity of true 24/192 DVD-A software, few normal consumers can, at this time, perform this comparison for themselves.
> > And it is all the same bit resolution.Since many SACDs come from PCM masters (of different resolutions), how can you possibly say this?
let’s not forget that most SACDs have some PCM along the line somewhere – i.e. in the studio when they implement DSP processing etc. Even bass management in SACD players, I understand, uses PCM! (and what multibit resolution do they do that in?)> > On DVD-A, you have . . . a bogus "inaudible" watermark in the analog output . . .
An engineer at EMI recently told me that ALL masters, have, or will soon have watermarking . . .
do not affect (too much) the original microphone feed into the ADC. I prefer 'live-to-2-track' with minimal signal processing.I loath bass-management for 2-channel stereo (again, because of the required DSP processing) and have some (slim) hopes to avoid this for multichannel. Of course this will require full-range all the way around which I am also hoping to eventually attain. (or do floorstanding speakers w/ 8" woofers count as full range ?)
SACDs are already watermarked but this (allegedly) does not affect the signal sonically. Yes, Sony, Universal, et al could decide to put Verance watermarking on the "stuff" which appears on the analog outputs, but I would hope the audiophile labels at least would avoid doing this because I cannot believe any watermarking which can survive the DAC (i.e line/speaker-level out) and ADC process (e.g. analog feed into computer) would be inaudible on a reasonably good stereo system.
My understanding is that Sony has such tight control over DSD/SACD player licensing that Verance-like watermarking in the analog domain is superfluous.
> > but I would hope the audiophile labels at least would avoid doing this . . .Likewise, there are DVD-A releases which do not use Verance.
Incidentally, nobody, apart from a few individuals such as Prof. Felton have claimed to be able to hear it (and that was during early beta-testing).
HowdyRE: "I am curious about some discussion of 'distortion' of high frequencies in DSD. I have heard the argument that there are some added energies at high frequencies that have folded over into the audible range as a result of filtering. This seems to my amateur brain as the only argument against DSD that should be a concern. Is it real?"
I haven't heard this particular spin before. DSD does rely on noise shapping which does introduce noise at the higher frequencies. However there is no folding over into audible requencies via filtering. Some are worried about this higher frequency content having unintended consequences in some equipment. As always let your ears be your guide.
Anyway if you cite a reference perhaps we can understand the concern and clear up the missunderstanding. (Or perhaps not :)
-Ted
nt
The moderators and many members of this forum seem to tolerate his behaviour since he's pro-SACD and Anti-DVD-A.We're it the other way around, he would've been booted off here long ago.
Welcome to the forum!
Hope you get some valuable information here (regardless of which format you're interested in).
Just as bad as Rich and states falsehoods like "Stereophile never prints rumours".Well Sony's press conference didn't pan out and Meridian is fuming over Stereophile's conjecture that they were developing a SACD player.
So what if Jazzinmate get's something wrong every now and than ? Was it his fault ? This IS a public forum and the reader would be a fool if they read every post as gospel.Most of Rich's posts may serve simply to infuriate certain folks, but it;s difficult to refute his "suppositions" and I find it VERY plausible that his position on hi-rez is fairly accurate IMHO.
I don't need another heckler. My specific comment on $tereophile is that "they are not in the habit of publishing rumors." I stand by that statement. And I do think there's something to the report, otherwise stereophile.com would not have published it. Meridian may just be upset because $phile stole its thunder in announcing an SACD player.
many of you know I buy DVD-Audio's that have hi-rez 2 Channel PCM in the DVD-Video format, the 24/96 DVD-Audio/Videos from Hi-Res Music are the best, but I also have some 24/48 from EMI, the best DVDs are the 24/96 DADs from Chesky, Classic Records and Rykodisc. I don't own a DVD-Audio player as no one has introduced a High End Stereo only unit. I only buy DVD-Audios that also have a 2 Channel Hi-Res soundtrack for DVD-Video format, so I have not tried the Warner Bros. as they only offer Dolby Digital in the Video soundtrack. As a 2 channel lover I am alarmed that all the new SACD units are multi-channel. My Sony DVP-S9000ES SACD/CD/DVD player has superb build quality, it may have to last as I will not buy a multi-channel one!Botton line: SACD is so much more REALISTIC and EXCITING and SMOOTHER sounding the hi-rez PCM DVD that I don't understand the problem. JUST BUY A SACD PLAYER, and LISTEN, then all of RICH's posts will make perfect sense.
I have SACD and DVD-Audio in my home, and Rich's posts do not make sense. He is an idiot.
I own a SACD player and love it. I find it better than DVD-A.My problem with Rich isn't what his preference is... it's his attitude and thread crapping that a normal/civilized forum would not allow.
This forum is so mickey-mouse, it's not even funny.
where you can be moderator and delete at will anything that does not meet YOUR standard of "normal/civilized". Better to light a candle than to curse the darkness you know.
I was led to believe the audio asylum forums were fairly "normal/civilized"compared to some of the forums out there. I'm not sure where Rich crosses the line. Certainly DVD-A proponents seem to be allowed to directly criticize his inputs, often with equally-unhelpful retorts/arguments. Seems to me a very difficult job to allow/disallow "unhelpful" posts as long as they are not blatantly offensive. In fact, I could suggest most of the posts her are "unhelpful" (including most of mine). Certainly Rich's post have not been blatantly offensive IMO. How would you justify censoring his posts (as opposed to others) ?
...Home Theater Forum. Click on the link below.
We haven't booted anyone off of Hi Rez--either SACD or DVD~A supporters. There are a lot of people here, who's opinions I don't agree with and I don't boot them off, so I resent the implication.Rich doesn't like DVD~A and wants to see it fail miserably. That is his right. He thinks people who bought a watermarked format that generally doesn't deliever to the consumer, its fullest potential, are idiots. That is his opinion. Let's move on.
Just don't open his posts. We do tolerate him, just like we tolerate others.
Take care, Chris
I have no problem with people stating their opinions. If someone likes DVD-A better, so be it. I'm actually in the SACD camp... so I have the same general opinion as Rich - in that I believe SACD is the superior format.Most of Rich's posts do nothing more than egg on other forum members. He doesn't give a thought-out, informative opinion... rather just his tired old DVD-A bashing.
His posts are childish and do nothing to aid the format and support others in this forum.
***He doesn't give a thought-out, informative opinion***My opinions have been expressed in detail on more than one occasion. Check the archives.
***His posts are childish and do nothing to aid the format and support others in this forum.***
I don't make a habit of encouraging stupidity. To do so isn't helping anyone.
Rich goes way beyond simply stating his opinion. He has basically called people liars and idiots simply because they support a different format and the moderator of the board simply will not do anything about it.
***He has basically called people liars and idiots simply because they support a different format and the moderator of the board simply will not do anything about it.***That isn't at all true. I reserve "liar" and "idiot" for liars and idiots.
nt
and Rich belong as every other voice in this forum,on the contary he put some strong colours in it ! and beleive me I had some arguments with him , too !
But it is like real life here...we have to accept us like we are...
AYKTNs.
underlying the "SACD tone" of this forum is the virtual lack of any identifiable DVD-A industry presence here (you may have noticed that SACD hardware and record label representatives contribute their knowledge and perspectives on pertinent issues on a fairly regular basis here).What this reflects in terms of DVD-A industry interest in--let alone commitment to--audiophiles and other consumers who frequent this forum and might have an interest in the format is something I leave open to speculation. It could just be an oversight, but to me it's a glaring, and very telling, one.
--Jim
industry professionals , participate in this forum , when they can easily see the disgraceful conduct , and anti-DVD-Audio venom spewed by certain members of this forum.Jim , it appears that your arrogance leads you to believe that this forum is the only audio forum in the world , or the most important audio forum in the world .
The only industry professionals who participate here are pro-SACD , and that is very telling .
...everyone is allowed to have their say here, even those who would love to see DVD-A shrivel up and blow away in the next 90 seconds(and don't mind saying so). You can read the same sort of thing in just about any internet forum, except perhaps for the ones where the moderator picks only the post submissions he likes to actually go on the board. If DVD-A industry people such as Bob Stuart will not post here, and the SACD industry pros show up frequently...then of course the forum becomes an SACD board by default. Would you expect otherwise? : )
not to participate--at least visibly--here, that's obviously their prerogative. What that decision communicates, or how it advances their interests, I leave to your judgment.And now I'll let you in on a little secret. When all this stuff began a few years ago (long before the Hi-Rez forum was a gleam in some Bored members eye or AA even a stop on my surfing circuit), I believed that DVD-A would end up ruling the hi-res roost, in part because of the putative versatility of DVD and its presumed can't-miss appeal to the buying public. I bought a modular DAC, had a 24/96 card (one that could subsequently be upgraded to 24/192) installed, and waited for a quality DVD-A player/transport. And waited. And waited. And waited. For Godot, as it turns out.
Meanwhile, Sony had entered the fray with two high-end players, and Marantz with one. A "referral" at AR (ironic, in the event) to the Digital Forum at AA brought me here. And a series of enthusiastic posts about the availability of a hot little number called the 777 at J&R for $1600 precipitated my love affair with, er, arrogance.
No, this forum isn't everything. Nor the only thing. But, for those of us who know we don't know everything and are receptive to learning something new, it's a valuable teaching laboratory. In hi-rez digital theory and implementation. In learning about specific products, operational tips, and the like. In listening. In getting a feel for the music as well as the hi-res industry. Even in, if we pay attention, the how-to's and how-not-to's of marketing. Ultimately, in--if we're not too cocky--broadening our perspective. (And, for you lurking Psych and Soc majors, a veritable mother lode of theses and dissertations on the vagaries of human behavior.)
It's also still the _Hi-Rez_ Forum...and some recent (and not-so-recent) posts suggest that new arrivals (or old hands just getting their feet wet in hi-res) interested in DVD-A come here for info. Seems like a good--and targeted--marketing opportunity for those with product to sell to provide technical and other information that builds, if you will, a relationship with potential buyers...a base, if you will, not unlike that which politicians ignore at their peril. If that observation strikes you as arrogant, I won't lose sleep over it.--Jim
Jim's arrogance is well known, Rich rudeness is intolerable, Tunenut does not knows what he is talking about, Patrick can't speak proper French, Simon is an idiot, Jazz Inmate has hidden political agenda (can't figure yet which one yet), Michi listens where she does not suppose to, Theob is, probably, drinking too much (and not alone!) - may be you are right, bad forum.
Now, on the more serios note, I wonder what are the audio forums where DVD-A is discussed by professionals such as Robert Stuart and others (but just audio or music - for video I still use my VCR - If I would have DVD then I would not be able to record World Cup event occuring in the middle of the night of my time from Japan and South Korea, now). Simon00111
Note that the first page is still not filled up after a year.
What about this very forum? Why has it become something of a Mecca for believers of one format in particular?Well, to understand this better, have you ever seen how when a pond or stream dries up, all the desperate fish tend to end up concentrated in one remaining puddle?
but somehow this forum seems alive and lively to me, not quite like the dying fish grasping for air on that sad little DVD-A forum.Why do most people around here like SACD? Cannot speak for anyone but myself- I collect SACD, listen to SACD and there is nothing in the DVD-A world that motivates me to spend money on it yet. So I would have to say I have no interest whatsoever in that subject and more or less ignore all discussions having to do with it- except once in a while to tweak some pompous blowhard. I have never believed in a format war. I do not believe the target markets or the commercial futures of these 2 formats have any correlation.
> > I do not believe the target markets or the commercial futures of these 2 formats have any correlation.Indeed. I think this explains the differences in the types of debates we see: SACD folks debating here are generally those "early adopters" — and predominantly classical/jazz audiophiles — many of whom are obsessed with technicalities and politics, rather than those being concerned about the music itself, hence the largely non-music oriented debates we see raging here.
And then there are the "I've got the new $10,000 gold-plated Sony SCD-A1 Super-Direct-Bitstreamer Capacitor-modded frequency-smoother-dynamic-burst-algorithm-noise-shaper" type of people, who place the object of their worship religiously in the mantelpiece every Sunday morning (or maybe every day) and bow down in due deference, before logging-on to Hirez-Highway to share their joy among the rest of the on-line congregation.
But seriously, as you pointed out, the markets do not correlate, and I think that explains why there tend to be more passionate debates on one side (SACD) than on the other (DVD-A). I think I would be correct in assuming that DVD-A is more in tune with the general public, and moreover, the general public would regard subjects such as "bitstream", "sampling rates", "noise shaping", "hybrids", "watermarking" as compelling conversation-stoppers. Hence they do not debate these kinds of subjects in the first place. That is why I believe a forum such as this could only occur with a niche format such as SACD. The same goes for ‘vinyl’, ‘vintage’, ‘tweaks, ‘tubes’ etc. . . If you mentioned any of these in a pub, the recipient would probably find a polite excuse to move on (or maybe not so polite).
In essence, I think it would be fair to say that the inmates here are an unusual bunch. In the same way, SACD is an "unusual format" to most people. I could therefore never see debates such as these as happening amongst the DVD-A/-V crowd, as all they are concerned about is that the music is (a) multichannel, and (b) it works on their DVD player, (c) it sounds cool, and (d) it’s got their favourite music. To them, the technology & politics behind it are irrelevant.
"assuming that DVD-A is more in tune with the general public".I don't think the general public knows or cares about DVD-A versus DTS.
As you say, audiophiles are a weird bunch. But this could apply to many types of enthusiasts in many fields.
I suspect there are equally passionate debates going on among home theater fanatics, and I know from my friend who is into that, that it is possible to spend absurd amounts of money on HT as well. But for me, movies are best on a real movie screen.
NT
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^6
Patricia
...don't speak French properly (and Italien too).... Single malt tends to do such things....:)
.
nice contribution by you over at www.positive-feedback.com.
The new online publication is a wonderful read!Jack
.
Well I'll admit, this forum is very strongly anti DVD-A. Personally, I'm not so much, but I've tried both and to me, SACD has come out on top so I do support it a bit more.Doesn't mean I don't buy DVD-A discs though; I do.
I think the biggest killer for DVD-A in a lot of people's minds is *WATERMARKING*. Which is going to color the sound a whole lot more than any difference in format, in my opinion.
Folks argue that you can't hear watermarking. Ehhh hm. The most evidently watermarked disc I've heard so far is Barenaked Ladies 'Maroon' on DVD-A. It sounds like slight crackling buzzing in the high frequencies.
two other things kill DVD-A for many audiophiles:1) No guarantee of a high-quality two-channel mix. I'm sure 192/24 can sound great but it won't fit on a disc that also has a surround mix. With SACD you can have your cake and eat it in either or both ways. Hey, I might have considered buying some DVD-A's but for the fact that they would sound like crap in my two-channel system with DVD-A's lame mix-down. Also, I'd rather cast my vote ($$$) for the format I want to win.
2) Stupid video interface. Even if it can be worked around it's a waste of disc space.
Watermarking is of course an anathema for audiophiles.
Steve,The ability to fit 24/192K and a 6 channel mix is a function of running time and ability to compress the data.
The Eagles' "Hotel California" and Carly Simon's "No Secrets" are two examples of discs with Stereo 24/192K and surround 24/96K on a single sided disc.
The "stupid video interface" takes up a negligible amount of space -- I've never seen the interface portion take up more than 20MB. On a disc capacity of 4.7GB/layer, that's well under 1%. If you're referring to the DVD-Video compatibility inclusion, that's another story.
Watermarking is optional with DVD-A. Nothing is there to stop Sony from including watermarking on SACD. I don't think it'll happen, but it is possible.
Regards,
Sure, it's possible to put a dedicated two-channel mix on the disc but it's not mandated so we can't rely on it. Maybe I want something other than "Hotel California" and "No Secrets" in two channel. With SACD, *every* title has a full-resolution two-channel mix.I just think that SACD is a much better conceived format for audiophiles. DVD-A seems geared directly toward HT setups whereas SACD works well in either a multichannel (maybe also HT but maybe not) setup or two-channel setup. And then there's the watermark issue with DVD-A. The biggest label behind DVD-A supports watermarking so it is a concern. I'm not concerned with hypothetical watermarking on SACD at the moment.
I say the video material is a waste of disc space since I don't care at all for video material included in an audio release. Plus, I don't have or want a TV set hooked up to my audio system. Liner notes do just fine for me. It's just my personal preference but I get the feeling many other audiophiles would agree with me. Regarding DVD-V compatibility inclusion, I wonder if removing it allows for a decent two-channel mix on every disc. However, I'm sure the format would have even less support if it didn't "just work" in any old DVD player.
Steve,The majority of Warner titles include dedicated stereo mixes. Only the first batch of tiles released by WB lacked dedicated stereo mixes.
The reason for the absence of 24/192K is two fold. One, was a dearth of 24/192K consoles. Second is space. In terms of utilized space, 200 to 300MB is typical for the DVD-Video compatibility tracks in VIDEO_TS. This wouldn't buy you much time in 24/192K, maybe 10-15 minutes, and the goal is to make the discs compatible with all DVD players.
There are others titles with 24/192K, I was citing releases that had 24/192K + surround + DVD-V on one side of a disc. The Doobie Bros "Captain and Me" is about what I would consider perfect from a compability perspective. It includes:
24/192K Stereo and 24/96K Multi-channel on the DVD-A side.
24/96K PCM stereo and DD and DTS for the DVD-V side.The inclusion of video is great for the MTV generation BTW.
Watermarking is a touchy subject, and I've said publically that it is in principle evil.
Regards,
if DVD-A wins this war the major labels won't cater exclusively to the MTV generation.I'd like to try out a reference quality two-channel DVD-A mix to get an idea of how good it can sound in my two-channel system (which is decidedly superior to my multi-HT system). Any suggestions? Pop? Classical? Jazz? Classical would be best since, IMO, strings seem to challenge digital reproduction the most. Thanks!
Steve,For classical:
Try AIX Records' recording of the New Jersey Symphony Orchestra, Beethoven's 6th Symphony and the Pines of Rome.For jazz:
Chesky Records' Bucky Pizzarelli "Swing Live".
Hi-Res Music's Monty Alexander, Ray Brown and Joe Pass "Trio"
While they might not be your cup of tea, the WB stereo mixes on titles like Fleetwook Mac's "Rumours", The Eagles' "Hotel California", and most of the other older titles come directly from the analog stereo masters with no remix.This should get you started.
Regards,
Are you sure that is watermarking? Just wondering if you have heard the CD. I have heard no buzzing on any of my DVD-Audio discs, but I don't have the Barenaked Ladies disc.
My Fourplay DVD-Audio disc sounds just as good as Spyro Gyra.
My Dvorak 9th DVD Audio sounds as good as my SACD Dvorak 9th.The real issue is, why is IT WORTH fighting about? As music lovers, we should simply revel in the choices, AND LISTEN. Who cares which is BETTER? Can Superman beat up a Tyranasaurus Rex? Who cares?
99% of the heat on these topics is caused by just a few people who really don't care about enhancing others musical enjoyment; they just really like to argue. It is about personality, not music, in their eyes.
me it sounds kind of silly to have 2 versions of the same work, not to mention a waste of space and money, I would keep the one I like the best and sell the other one on eBay! I know the performances are different, but I just don't understand why multiple versions of the same work, especially by a composer that wrote Nine symphonies! Do you have Dvorak's other eight? I would get those first, before buying multiple versions of his 9th! I truly do not understand?Also I had the Szell Dvorak 9th on Sony SACD, hated the performance and sound, I sold it on eBay. I will wait for the Kertez on Decca or the Slatkin on Telarc to appear on SACD.
...first off, not all the Dvorak symphonies are represented on hi-rez, but he may well have them all on vinyl or CD. The works I find most interesting, I have multiple recordings of because no one performance can illuminate all facets of the score completely. I have 5 recordings of Beethoven's opus 130 string quartet, and each ensemble has sufficient differences in interpretation that I could be listening to a different piece for long stretches. There is rarely one definitive performance that convinces me to throw away all the others, each is excellent but different. Also, some versions may have superior recording quality, but give away something in interpretation to the mono recording. Many of us want to have both available.
Same reason Baskin-Robbins has 31 flavors..
I have about 10 Firebird's. Each one has things good and bad, and you can love them all. Maybe th performance on one, the miking technique on another. The dynamics on another. Bernstein's is great, but its in stereo. The Von Karajan DVD in multi is something to hear(!!) and see. Dolby digital, but great!.
????
...Supes, I believe. : )
We have an agreement with Chris. This is the 7th time you have broken it. The sickest thing about you is what I heard off the board; that you actually thought Chris' order that you quit stirring trouble with my posts was temporary, like you had a right (or weirder, a duty) to get back into the frey with me, and go back to ruining the board for others. That is pathological, even if nothing else you wrote is. That's a BIG "if".
Interesting that a whole 'nother board found you too obnoxious.
That smell is coffee!Seratonin uptake inhibitors are the answer to your very obvious personality disorder (outdated term).
Off to listen to Steve Reid's Bamboo Forest on DTS, "Mysteries".
I like it.
nt
Maybe I'll delete my post.
nt
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2025, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
