 
|
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 |
In Reply to: Do you know what XRCD24 is? posted by jazz inmate on October 04, 2003 at 12:48:18:
The thread is about XRCD24 you moron.Everyone else was having a conversation about XRCD Greg. You weren't included. Make like a bird and flock off.
Follow Ups:
Of course not.
have you figured out that thing about how on SACD mono discs the sound comes out of both speakers?Does the Maltz collection contain any XRCD24's in it? I'll guess - NO.
Guess what. The RH collection does. As well as a number of earlier XRCD's - which the XRCD24's are very superior to.
And no, you know already that I don't care for SACD, so you already know I wouldn't waste my time with a comparison.
On ALL my discs, the sound comes out of both speakers, even on mono discs - pretty cool, huh Greg?
You are a strange fellow.
Regards,
Metralla
an overwhelming majority, actually, who couldn't care less about SA-CD.And there are, among them, many like myself who find it seriously flawed, and to offer insuffucient improvement over QUALITY CD performance to warrant being suckered into replacing a diverse collection. Then there are those, again myself included, who find the titles being made available on SA-CD to be so overwhelmingly conservative and boring that they wouldn't want to be caught in that camp.
If you find that strange, ok, no problem with me. Joe ordinary finds people buying SACD's strange.
A secret for you - 99% of the people in the world find the collecting of the complete mastering works of Steve Hoffman to be a bit...ahhh...weird...
I think I'll pass over to the Wine Forum to tell people that wine is overrated and boring and that Joe Average cares more about a sale on a six-pack of Bud than a quality Pinot Noir from Oregon. But what's the point. This and that are enthusiast's forums. People with good systems here can hear a major, positive, difference in the quality of typical SACD vs. typical CD. Not all are home runs. But they like to share it. That is what being an enthusiast is all about. I can't understand strange, miserable, people like you who feel the need to crap over other's enjoyment. I guess it's the world we live in.
that's a start.The forum is called "Hi-Rez Highway", that is, a forum about Hi-Rez - the purpose being to exchange views and experiences. I know that's news to you, as you either treat it as a venue to promote your personal agenda, or to rudely attempt to squelch any views not shared by you.
Here's what it's NOT called:
SACD Highway
SACD OWNERS Highway
SACD is the ONLY form of Hi-Rez Audio Highway
I read through the rules again today - you should try it, Greg, even though you would ignore them. NOWHERE does it say you have to OWN - SUPPORT - or LIKE SACD to post here - nowhere does it say that only SACD is Hi-Rez - and nowhere does it say that people aren't free to post their views pro or con.
No one ever said you can't post. But when you do post and make an ignorant jackass of yourself--as you've done here quite successfully--you ought to be able to admit it.Hope that was articulate enough for you.
If you read the blurb at the top right of our page, it kind of explains what HRH is about, in plain English, which I believe is the native language of Torontoians?"New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology."
Take care, behave and don't feed the animals.
Chris
the English has to be VERY simple to be understood - or should I post in Spanish next time?My post said - NOWHERE does it say one must be an owner of SACD - or like it - or support it - to post here - I also said - NOWHERE does it say that SACD is the only form of hi-rez audio - is that good English down in Florida?
Hey Chris - you're the moderator - dontcha know your own rules?
Here in Toronto, we still speak ENGLISH english, I guess it's sort of a hybrid down there where you fill in the blanks with whatever you like?
since we have a separate DIGITAL Asylum for things digital and since we have a separate DVDA Asylum for DVDA and since we have a third Asylum for SACD, it's kind of implied that people post in the appropriate Asylums for any particular topic. One wouldn't go to Amps/Preamps to discuss turntables and one wouldn't go to the Cable Asylum to discuss tubes, now would they? 16/44.1 isn't HiRez in the context of DVDA and SACD, although many redbook hardcores would like to believe it so.That's my point.
Take care, Chris
this thread is about comparing JVC's XRCD24 to SACD, and I haven't been discussing anything in my posts not in the context of a SACD discussion.One DOES find discussion of tubes in the Cable Asylum, in the context of cables in a tube system, one DOES find discussion on the Amps Asylum about turntables, in the conext of turntables with certain amps, and maybe what you need here is to be VERY specific about your little club, because it seems there are many more like Maltz and Theresa with dim light bulbs. Kind of says a lot about SACD when you see who the buyers are, and what their systems are. So here's my suggestion - change the rules for this asylum, and state it right up front:
SACD owners and supporters Asylum. Post only if you own SACD, believe it is the best, and are only willing to say how much you love it.
Then you needn't worry about someone who doesn't own a SA-CD posting their views here, and that's what the issue seems to be - the SACD owners are VERY defensive about their investment, and get very offended when someone says anything that invalidates their purchase.So just make it a SACD owner's board.
Anyways, it's been stimulating - I'm glad to have stimulated such a great discussion - it does get boring on this board!
I don't generally walk into a Catholic church on Sunday morning and shout out that the Pope sucks and is a charlatan, even though I might not believe that he's a conduit to God herself.We call it 'raining on somebody else's parade' here in the land of heathens.
And you're right, the original post did ask for a comparison between SACDs and XRCD24s, but the thread has taken a detour somewhere past that.
Take care, Chris
"Hi-Rez Highway New high resolution SACD releases, players and technology" means the talk here is about SACD, DUH!
that there are a lot of stupid people like you on this board.Like I said - NOWHERE does it say to come on this board that I must own a SACD player - like SACD - or think it's any good.
Hey Theresa...DUH!!! You can talk about SACD without liking it...not everyone is a sucker.
It makes no sense for you to be here. If you simply said that you can't hear the VAST improvement that SACD offers over that gawd-awful CD you are so dedicated to. We would just feel sorry for your hearing impairment and you would be fell to go back to your CD hell you so enjoy!Why do you come here to be abused?
Anyway it is not our fault you do not like SACD, that is a problem you will have to work through.
There is no reason to insult people just because their reading comprehension amd listening skills are superior to yours.
I pray for you,
Teresa
At least SACD attempts to sound like actual real music! It does not give the absolute pleasure of the best Analog formats but it is close. PCM will never sound like music and CDs sound like TOTAL COMPLETE CRAP! Just as your line of reasoning does.OK Understand? It is CD and PCM based recordings that are seriously flawed and totally anti-musical!
Have you ever heard an SACD from a high quality analog or DSD master?
All anyone has to do is listen to an Audiophile LP or an Audiophile SACD to hear everything that is wrong with CD. Millions have quit CD and they are not ever going back! More wake up every day and shake off the dreadful CD sound from their lives.
Just my 2 cents,
Teresa
"Millions have quit CD and they are not ever going back!"
That just proves the point that you can't be taken seriously anymore so I'll leave the rest of your post alone.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Um, I think she meant millions quit to MP3, cause they sure have't quit to LP, SACD, or DVD-A.... (sorry, couldn't resist)
nt
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
"That just proves the point that you can't be taken seriously anymore so I'll leave the rest of your post alone."Exactly. Further debate with this type is a waste of time. I don't doubt that SACD is a big step upwards for her, look at the system - but here general arguments are nutsy.
Many cannot stand ugly CD sound, I AM NOT ALONE! Millions are with me.You are free to believe whatever you want.
Teresa
> " Many cannot stand ugly CD sound, I AM NOT ALONE! Millions are with me." <I am with you, Teresa - as far as listening at home is concerned.
Trouble is, ALL OF THE STORES CLOSE TO WHERE I LIVE AT SELL NOTHING BUT THOSE CRAPPY LI'L SILVER THINGS!!! LISTENING TO THOSE THINGAMAJIGS AT HOME IS MY IDEA OF HELL!!! HOW DARE COULD THE MAJOR LABELS SHOVE SUCH CRAPTACULAR SOUND DOWN THE EARS OF THE UNSUSPECTING PUBLIC!!! HOW DARE THEY!!!
Just say "NO" to bad sound,
ILoveJazz
Your reasoning is simply illogical so it's hard to make any kind of alternate comment other than to point out how illogical it is.DVD-V sales have blown all predictions out of the water since it was introduced but so what? Does that demonstrate to you that PCM isn't the evil, nasty sound you believe it to be?
For your convenience I've provided a very interesting link which displays the sales of every music format separately, and despite the RIAA being extremely reticent when it comes comparing SACD with SACD sales it appears the Aussies are more forthcoming.
You may be surprised to see that DVD-A (or DVD Albums as they refer to them - and yes, DVD-Videos are separate) sold approximately 600% more titles than SACD, and CD album sales were UP, that's UP on last year!
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
I have a hard time believing only 6,500 SACDs sold for the first half of 2003, maybe there's a huge grey market with all releases being imports or some stealth SACDs are included as CDs?The DVD-As sound about right, and the vinyl 12" singles is definitely too low (or there is no dance scene out there, which I doubt ... probably imports as well)
Best
Eric
LP sales increased 800% last year and CD sales decreased by 10%. Just go into any used record store and ask a teenager why they are looking at LPs, and they will tell you CDs are COLD sounding and LPs sound sooooo much better with warmth that Digital can never match and the LPs cover look really cool.So if teenagers understand what is wrong with CD why don't you? are you that DUMB? Just curious as you have been coming to the Hi Rez highway for 2 years now and you are still listening to Gawd-awful CDs!!!!!! How is that possible? You defy logic!
Clean your ears Chris and try an SACD or LP, you will be grad you did! And then you can join the millions who have left CD in the dust!
Happy listening,
Teresa
Still, thanks for pointing out the figures that I provided to disprove yours."Just go into any used record store and ask a teenager why they are looking at LPs, and they will tell you CDs are COLD sounding and LPs sound sooooo much better with warmth that Digital can never match and the LPs cover look really cool."
Think you'll find the kids are buying more CDs than they were the year before (see the figures) and more LPs (good for them!).
Digital obviously sounds soooooo cold that dowloads are apparently threatening the world as we know it, DVD-V is the fastest selling format ever and personal hard-drive players are becoming THE accessory for kids to own.
Maybe I should ask 100 kids what they think of SACD or DVD-A and see if ANY know what I'm on about?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Just the other day I was talking with my retailer about upcoming local availability of a particular label's SACDs. The sticker price will be about AUD $45 (he said originally they were going to be $60). Now I can buy these exact same titles directly from the UK for about $30 delivered ... about the same as a full price CD. Even Universal Australia overpriced their SACDs. (To their credit, EMI SACDs sell for much the same as CDs.)Now I'm all for supporting local retailers but the target price they seem be aiming for of about $45 is just too high. These guys have to get real. I now import most of my stuff and expect most are smart enough to do so as well.
Stephen
I'd say DVD Albums are simply music DVDs, as opposed to MTV-style "music videos".Check out this Australian online music store for example. These are all music DVDs, unless they've released a lot more DVD-As in Australia than anywhere else. A google search for DVD-A and Australia produces almost nothing.
At the bottom of the list you can see 'Music Video - VHS' and Music Video - DVD', so logically I'd say that if DVD-Albums contained any video content the video aspect would be stated.The only DVD's that do not contain video are DVD-Audio and it's not beyond the realms of possibility that whoever created the table took DVD-A to stand for DVD-Album. :0)
I've just emailed them anyway to clarify the matter so we'll see what happens, and I've also asked about whether the recent Stones SACDs were classified as SACD or CD.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Thanks for the link.A small point - where did you find the definition that stated "DVD Albums" = DVD-Audio?
My primary question is - where did all the hybrid SACDs get counted? The Rolling Stones being the main example I'm thinking of. It's possible that these are being counted as CDs.
Any thoughts?
Regards,
Metralla
"A small point - where did you find the definition that stated "DVD Albums" = DVD-Audio?"I didn't find the definition anywhere but it's the only logical conclusion when music DVD-Vs are classified as a seperate format, and the fact that the DVD Albums column is physically situated alongside the SACD column would tend to strengthen that conclusion.
"My primary question is - where did all the hybrid SACDs get counted? The Rolling Stones being the main example I'm thinking of. It's possible that these are being counted as CDs."Your guess is as good as mine on that one but the SACD figures do look low when considering the popularity of The Stones.
It all depends on how the sales figures are collected - most retailers don't appear to know that The Stones' recent remasters were SACD and when there's no indication on the packaging who can blame them?The problem might be that for The Stones' album to appear on the CD album charts it's sales - I imagine - would have to be classed as CD, yet to promote SACD we have Sony exclaiming that SACD titles outsold DVD-A by 'X' amount without actually providing universally accepted figures.
Seems like smoke and mirrors to me but as a guide to which is the most successful format to date, the dual layer SACDs and multi-format players make any valid assessment virtually impossible; I only linked to these to demonstrate that Theresa's overview is even more flawed than anything I could provide.
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
and you know it.Regarding "replacing a diverse collection", I do have a few CDs that I have replaced with SACDs. But the Redbook doesn't go to waste. I have taken them to work and have a nice little collection of duplicates, and I either listen to them there, or take them when travelling. I don't feel that I have been "suckered".
Regards,
Metralla
I agree, there are some great, classic titles on SACD, many titles that I have in my collection.But you will have to agree, it's very resricted to titles of a "classic" nature, aimed at middle aged high income white male consumers, and will never go very far past that.
It's a perfectly valid choice to avoid SACD - and focus on building a real musical CD system with outstanding CD playback. There might be a few things about SACD that have a minor edge over exceptional CD playback, but it's not overwhelming or essential - although SACD will sound better at the same price point when comparing mid-fi players.
I've got such a wide ranging collection that it makes more sense to get an exceptional CD playback system rather than fill the record company coffers re-purchasing the same old stuff again.
"I've got such a wide ranging collection that it makes more sense to get an exceptional CD playback system"Absolutely a sensible course of action. There is a lot more music out on CD than on SACD and this won't change anytime soon.
It all depends on a personal equation- how many outstanding releases on SACD would justify purchase of a player? For me, 50 would be enough and I passed that long ago. But if all I had were 50 SACDs I enjoyed, I would consider my player a valuable addition. In fact, this recent set of Dylan releases is almost enough just on its own- outstanding- but then I am a fan.
Don't know why people get so acrimonious about what is essentially a personal cost/benefit decision.
That's why I've had this theory that SACD has the most appeal to either those whose tastes in music are limited to baby-boomer classics from the mid 60's to mid 70's, and mid 1950's conservative bebop to the mid 60's BN/Verve type bop, or those who may have ok to decent systems where the CD player was the weak link.I've got an exceptional CD system (two, actually) but that's not my main reason to stick with CD. Aside from my not finding SACD consistently superior to MY CD sound (granting that, for many, it will be far superior as not everyone cares to invest as much in the source), I have a very large CD collection, and I am constantly buying new music - like, music of today, not rehashed dinosaurs that get continually revived for another kick at the cash can - and I get far more kicks from listening to the new Tomahawk, Mondo Generator, Muse, Elbow, Mushroom, Mars Volta, Spiritualized, David S. Ware, Arena, or many others, than I do from getting fleeced for another round of "Who's Next" or "Close To The Edge" with some dubious bonus tracks and the sound screwed around with a bit, but not particularly improved.
The record companies recognize the limitations of SACD, people like me do buy the Dylan and Stones hybrids - purely for the exceptional CD sound, and because these titles have never been reissued properly on CD, hence there is a legitimate and exciting rediscovery.
But another round of Miles reissues, or another kick at the annually remastered and reissues classic Prestige staples? Forget it, it's boring. Maybe if there were nothing else.
Funny thing is, I find there is no lack of older stuff to rediscover either. Just this year I have been glad to find the first four Kevin Ayers albums well reissued, and stuff like Mott The Hoople, Nucleus, If, Gong, Jonesy coming out again - all on CD in outstanding sound, not likely to ever make it to SACD, let alone be reissued again in my lifetime.
It all, as you rightly point out, comes down to a cost/benefit decision - like anything else in life, I had to weigh that, and what I heard from SACD compared to what I already have, for the kind of things that I like, didn't make it.
Some people are thrilled at the prospect of In The Court Of The crimson King coming to SACD, it gets discissed a lot. This one title typifies, for me, what I can't buy into with SACD. The master tapes for ITCOTCK have been lost for decades, Robert Fripp has a very large standing offer to buy them back if someone has them. They are likely gone forever. The recent CD remaster does sound excellent, and there's no "higher rez" to be obtained, given that only second generation tapes are available. But aside from that, I can't get woody about waiting eagerly for another reissue - I've got well past that title, I have 'em all in great sound right up to Thrak - but even more exciting for me is the new 21st Century Schizoid Band CD featuring ex-Crimson members recreating the old tunes for the 21st Century - and it's here for me to listen to today, on CD - not on SACD.
If I've got $20 to spend today on music, I would rather get 21st Century Schizoid Band rather than another Court Of The Crimson King. But then again, my Court Of The Crimson King, on my system, sounds not so dissimilar from any SACD version that the benefit is simply not there, while the thrill of the new outweighs by far any minor sonic change to a well-tread classic.
and much thought put into the reply...deserves a response. Much like you, when it comes to pop/rock, I am MUCH more interested in new than old. Of the names on your list, I have Muse, Elbow, Spiritualized (longtime favorite Ladies and Gentlemen...). Strangely enough, the Muse I have is on SACD, but it is possibly the worst sounding SACD of any I have bought- live concert poorly recorded.Anyway I am always listening for new things and I am lucky to have an extremely eclectic college radio station nearby where I can almost always hear something I've never heard before.
And SACD is not the place to buy any of this so far. I get much of it on LP, and the rest on CD.
So where does SACD fit into my listening? Well, over the last 20 years I have developed a deep love of classical music. It may seem like a strange contradiction to enjoy pop/rock/electronic as well as classical, but I find these offer different hooks entirely...there are times for the Transplants and times for Bluebeard's Castle. It really is a great gift of modern technology to have all these choices.
And SACD has proven an excellent medium for classical music, with many essential releases so far and more soon to come. I will admit to buying the same music over and over in some cases. Many of the Mercury Living Presence classics that I have on 2 or 3 versions on LP and the reissue CD- yes, I will buy them on SACD as soon as available. SACD is a great medium for music that can be played repeatedly for years- example the Starker versions of Bach's cello suites. I will be listening to these for the rest of my days.
And then there are the Stones, Sam Cooke and Bob Dylan. These reissues have been superb, really reinvigorating music that I thought I had gladly been done with years ago. These are indeed rather conservative choices, yet also proofs of concept. And also personally quite rewarding just on their own merits. Especially Sam Cooke, whom I was only marginally aware of. And rediscovering all this great old (and not so old) Dylan- I've even found some great stuff on Street Legal.
> And SACD has proven an excellent medium for classical music, with many essential releases so far and more soon to come.You and I must have either entirely different concepts of performance standards and/or what the word "many" means.
as I know you are a classical maven and I am not. However, here, off the top of my head are a few essentials:Perahia Goldberg Variations and Chopin Etudes
Boulez Rite of Spring and Stravinsky Rite of Spring
Boulez's Bartok Concerto for Orchestra
Walter's Brahams 4th and Beethoven 6th
Glenn Gould's Bach disks
Fischer's Dvorak 8th and 9th
all the Hickox Vaughan Williams releases so far
the Vaughan Williams disk on Vanguard
Kleiber's Beethoven 5th
Boulez's Ravel disk
Ormandy's Verdi RequiemFeel free to disagree with any of these.
And there have been very few examples of discernible differences between an SACD and the exact same material on redbook.I asked numerous times, where, on what disc, can I hear something that sounds better than on the best redbook version of the same work.
VERY few answers (but some!).
I woud likr to hear XRCD24, and hate Steve Hoffman's work.
I may be CONfused, but you are clueless. The differences between standard Cd nd SA-CD is SO OBVIOUSLY audible, you may need your ears repaired.
.
On the Sonny Rollins SACD, in your very own words ....Moving from the standard red-book CD layer to the SACD layer is similar to viewing something through a veil of fog and then viewing it once again once the fog has lifted. Though the image is basically the same, but the site itself is has far more presence and life then before, the same holds true with the SACD layer. It is remarkable just how much of a difference it makes on this particular album.
Over to you, counselor.
Regards,
Metralla
The example you give doesn't compare the best recording on CD with SACD, but instead compares the SACD layer with the CD layer.In my very limited experience it has ALWAYS been the case that both these layers have been mastered so that not too surprisingly the SACD layer is apparently much better than the it's CD counterpart.
To quote Paul Messenger's recent Krell review again, "While qualitative differences were anticipated, extended listening showed that clear differences in frequency response and modulation level were present in the source recording, clearly differently mastered for the two formats".
In one instance the SACD layer was 4dB louder than the CD layer, which begs the question why exactly do the studios have to manipulate the mastering to ensure that a the SACD layer is superior to the CD?
Surely the extra resolution of the Hi-Rez format would make itself quite apparent on it's own?
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Hi there,In my experience, there is no conspiracy (of any sort) going on vis a vis the Redbook layer being compromised to make the DSD layer 'look good'.
Quite the contrary - I seem to be working harder than ever to make the Redbook sound as close a possible to the DSD layer. DSD to PCM conversions (for generating a Redbook programme from a DSD source) sound *really* good to me, if done carefully.
Of course, some producers wonder why the 44k1/16 bit can't sound just as good as the DSD... ;->
...and since they write the cheques, I do my best to make it happen for them. But it isn't possible - the DSD layer has just a 'slight' resolution adavantage ;->
I don't know of anybody who's deliberately making the Redbook layer worse than the DSD layer - that would be some form of professional suicide...
Sure, there are often different mastering aesthetics applied to DSD vs Redbook, but that isn't an 'across the board' practise. Lower budget projects, for instance, may only be able to afford one mastering session, so the Redbook is derived from the DSD in that case. The same workflow may happen because a producer likes the sound of doing it that way, regardless of the economics. And so on...
Regards,
Graemme
p.s. - I don't mean to single you out on this point, Chris.
Hi Graemme,"In my experience, there is no conspiracy (of any sort) going on vis a vis the Redbook layer being compromised to make the DSD layer 'look good'."
In my experience the differences are quite clear and are documented in numerous reviews by independent writers.
If you are selling SACDs I can't regard you as independent, and of course you'll be aware that studios who sell DVD-A declare DVD-A to be superior to SACD and studios who use SACD declare SACD to be superior to DVD-A, the conclusion being that studios either hear different things or......
"Quite the contrary - I seem to be working harder than ever to make the Redbook sound as close a possible to the DSD layer."So before you weren't? :0)
"DSD to PCM conversions (for generating a Redbook programme from a DSD source) sound *really* good to me, if done carefully."I agree! Unfortunately this is one of the reasons I can't understand why the redbook layer of an SACD should be so inferior.
"Of course, some producers wonder why the 44k1/16 bit can't sound just as good as the DSD... ;->...and since they write the cheques, I do my best to make it happen for them. But it isn't possible - the DSD layer has just a 'slight' resolution adavantage ;-> "
If a producer is putting out an SACD it's my opinion that he wants people to think that the extra price is worth it over the redbook, otherwise why bother?
Sorry but producers are in the business to make money, and if customers can here littl edifference bewteen both layers why would they buy the next release from that producer on SACD when the CD is cheaper?
"I don't know of anybody who's deliberately making the Redbook layer worse than the DSD layer - that would be some form of professional suicide..."For the reasons above it's my opinion that it would be professional suicide to make the two layers indistinguishable, and you might not know the individuals concerned but the phenomenom of both layers being so different as to be almost different recordings is real.
Sorry but those involved in the mastering like yourself have a vested interest when giving an opinion, and because I've never met you you'll understand why I have to remain suspicious.
Best Regards,
Chris Redmond.p.s. - I don't mean to single you out on this point, Graemme. :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
Hi Graemme,I suspect the progress made in DSD projects (and maybe the more attention given by all parties) will trickle down and we will have some much better CD versions, and this is good news for everyone.
How much control do you guys have over the final product, though? I remember the article posted on this board a few months ago where a producer explained that almost all CDs got "boosted" at the last minute by 1 dB so that the sound would blast on most people's equipment. Maybe that is what happened with DSOTM, and a few others, so that the CD layer would sound "big".
However, I don't discard the conspiracy theory entirely at this point (makes life more interesting :)
Best
Eric
PS: are you working on new SACD projects now? Did you see the thread about the first "indie" SACD a few days ago?
Hi Eric,You wrote:
"I suspect the progress made in DSD projects (and maybe the more attention given by all parties) will trickle down and we will have some much better CD versions, and this is good news for everyone."Sure...just as long as you don't expect them to sound as good as their hi-res sources ;-)
"How much control do you guys have over the final product, though?"I do what the producer/artist/label asks me to do and for the format that they request.
Some clients have very specific ideas of what they want, others leave it up to me and most are in between those two.
"I remember the article posted on this board a few months ago where a producer explained that almost all CDs got "boosted" at the last minute by 1 dB so that the sound would blast on most people's equipment."
The CD loudness wars have been going on for a few years now...As a mastering engineer, I can say "No, I won't mash the life out of that music" and watch the gig go down the street to someone who not only will be happy to do it, but won't give that ex-client of mine a hard time about their aesthetic choices, either...
Therefore, the client always gets what they ask for ;-)
I don't agree that there is a "last minute boost of 1 dB" added to CD's, as a general statement. The general trend is to make a CD as loud as possible and yet still sound 'good' to the client - if the client cares (most do). Of course, 'Good' is defined however one feels like at the moment.
There are no 'rules' as it were...the aesthetic of the day is *LOUD* and lots of people want their CD to be 'competitive' with the next guy's/girl's.
Making a great-sounding, LOUD rock album is an art itself and something that I really enjoy...just as much as making a string quartet album sound as 'real' as possible.
The old story is that your CD needs to be loud to be noticed by radio programme directors (or some variation on this theme). "If it ain't loud then your commercial radio career won't even get started."
However, this idea has largely been de-bunked and there is an excellent chapter in Bob Katz' book "Mastering Audio, the Art & Science" (Focal Press) called "Radio Ready - The Truth"
I *highly* recommend this book. However, for some, it may ruin the notion that mastering is some kind of 'black magic'...
"Maybe that is what happened with DSOTM, and a few others, so that the CD layer would sound "big"."Sure, they were just level matching with the latest pop stuff ;-)
"However, I don't discard the conspiracy theory entirely at this point (makes life more interesting :)"
Oh no, not you too... ;-> Sometimes this forum reminds me of the movie "Day of the Triffids"
Best Regards,
Graemme
"p.s. - I don't mean to single you out on this point, Chris."He had it coming anyway!
Stephen
there's more than just the well documented case of the recent DSOTM hybrid where the CD layer has been deliberately degraded sonically to ensure the SACD layer will sound better.It's even trickling down now - for example the recent batch of Santana CD remasters are very notably below what is possible, no doubt to ensure that the eventual SACD or SACD hybrid release will show an "improvement".
What a scam this business is, but obviously, there are enough willing buyers to keep it going. The kids are smart - they have abandoned the record business in droves.
I remember observations being made about 'Kind of Blue' years ago where the SACD was simply remastered to create an impression of being superior to it's CD equivalent; well done to the engineers for the remastering job in this case but it's a shame they couldn't just put the results on a CD for everyone to enjoy.Because I own the MFSL version of DSOTM I'm well aware that NO remaster I've compared it too equals the resolution - certainly not the 'best of' (Echoes) version which was extolled as being so good yet which misses out certain low-level detail altogether.
It almost excuses kids' illegal downloading when they're being manipulated by certain labels - at least it could be suggested that they're getting their own back, but of course I couldn't suscribe to that view myself. :0)
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
SACD and CD. It's easy the one the sounds realistic, relaxed and smooth sounding that is the SACD. The one that sounds ugly, uncomfortable and stringent that's the CD. Simple.
No one EVER answers that question. And that's why I write what I do.
complete SACD on any high end SACD player. And every passage will be more relaistic, warnmer and smoother on the SACD. Simple you could even do this yourself!Teresa
SACD is a big improvement over CD, yupper. It's got a lot to do with DSD processing, because even the Cd hybrid layers sound much, much better on a standard CD player.
You have disproven your own theory. That means that DSD can be used to make a redbook that is as good, or nearly as good as the SACD. That means it IS NOT SACD that is the big improvement, in your experience, but DSD mastering. That makes my point.
....but he'll backtrack and say that although the CD layer is much, much better it's still ugly and distorted...
Best Regards,
Chris redmond.
He's a conman who is confused - get it? He's come to the right place.I agree with DUI. The DSD mastering process is a big leap forward, when used on a CD - in a truly hi-rez CD syatem - it's outstanding, and unless the DSD-CD has been sonically compromised, there's little to choose from the DSD CD and SA-CD. IMO, the DSD method accounts for more than the SA-CD format.
Robert H. nailed it. DSD shows great potential as a CD mastering medium. I could not figure out why I sometimes preferred the DSD mastered Redbook layer to the SACD layer of the same disc. This does not seem to make sense. SACD has better organic flow and better harmonic interludes, but there is something "thick" about the sound, (not in the good high resolution sense), that can bother my ears and make them ring. I do not have especially good high frequency hearing either. I have trouble listening to a SACD piece all the way through, but I can forget the equipment and listen to the music better with a DSD mastered redbook cut.
wouldn't DSD be superior in it's native format SACD rather than being compromised by being downsampled to CD?If you did DSD mastering SACD is the way to go.
Well, I have read a few tales from folks who claim to hear DSD 'artifacts' or ultrasonic noise which theory says is inaudible, but yet somehow can't manage to hear in-band watermarking, which theory tells us should be audible. Then there are those who sometimes point to these claims of SACD sonic deficiency, and at others point to tests that indicate no difference between hi-rez PCM and DSD encoding. Which camp do you belong to? :-)
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 ]
