In Reply to: SACD vs DVD-A article posted by Rod Paine on August 17, 2004 at 14:02:03:
Frank and Christine will love that, I bet :)I guess that's a pretty good case for MCH over stereo - I hope people who claim 2CH stereo is better than MCH will read this and realize that most of the time they are missing the real stuff on those hi-rez recordings, either SACD or DVD-Audio.
The part that got me really interested is the comparison of SACD playback, although I'm not sure about the conclusion one should draw from this. The part about ultrasonic noise is still not very clear for me, as I get the same ultrasonic noise (either on my Sony DVP9000ES or my Marantz DV8300) and the same "peaks" on my SACD recordings.
All scientific measurements aside, from a practical point of view, it doesn't say (or maybe i didn't understand) what is the best method for playing and recording SACDs if you want to have the best sound quality, that's what I'm really interested in.
Best
Eric
PS: Actually, it also reminds me that I should post the Diana Krall data and pictures, which I've been too lazy to do (I have some good excuses :), I'll try to post them this weekend. It's obvious from my data that the DVD-Audio and the SACD versions of Look of Love are not the same mix and masters, the differences are simply too high to make any comparison meaningful. It's also very clear that if the two versions were transferred from the same analog tapes (as suggested by Jimby), the DVD-Audio version has been tampered with. The DVD-Audio version is badly limited and clipped (both 2CH and MCH) and the version to have is the SACD. More on this later this week.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Superb... - Eric LeRouge 03:37:50 08/18/04 (1)
- Actually, no - I agree with Dave Kingsland and Dan Banquer ... - Christine Tham 14:45:09 08/18/04 (0)