Hi-Rez Highway

I'll second that DUI you need your hearing checked, anyone even non-audiophile's can hear the drastic difference between

65.178.72.115

[ Follow Ups ] [ Post Followup ] [ Thread: Display All Email ] [ Hi-Rez Highway ]

Teresa

(A)

In Reply to: Re: I posted here long ago that SACD was the Emperor's New Clothes posted by CONfused on October 05, 2003 at 04:56:46:

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.

Follow Ups:

How about a passage we can all listen to and verify that? - Duilawyer 08:27:48 10/05/03 (1)
No one EVER answers that question. And that's why I write what I do.
- Any and every single passage you choose, just listen to the complete CD on any high end CD player then the - Teresa 16:40:21 10/05/03 (0)
  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
Re: I'll second that DUI you need your hearing checked, anyone even non-audiophile's can hear the drastic difference bet - CONfused 06:07:05 10/05/03 (5)
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.
- ", because even the Cd hybrid layers sound much, much better on a standard CD player. " - Duilawyer 08:29:35 10/05/03 (4)
  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.
  - He made that far too easy for you..... - chris.redmond2@bushinternet.com 11:42:40 10/05/03 (3)
    ....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.
    - Why do you think he calls himself CONfused? - Robert H. 12:38:41 10/05/03 (2)
      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.
      - Re: Why do you think he calls himself CONfused? - cjfrbw 17:07:29 10/06/03 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Why do you think he calls himself CONfused? posted by Robert H. on October 05, 2003 at 12:38:41:
        
        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.
      - Logically if as you say " DSD mastering process is a big leap forward, when used on a CD" - Teresa 16:45:46 10/05/03 (0)
        
        In Reply to: Why do you think he calls himself CONfused? posted by Robert H. on October 05, 2003 at 12:38:41:
        
        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.

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Kimber Kable

You can not post to an archived thread.