In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Audio_Empire" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Scott wrote:
On Thursday, September 19, 2013 6:09:53 AM UTC-7, Audio_Empire wrote:
In article ,
SNIP
SACD was envisioned as a replacement for the "flawed" and
less-than-audiophile-quality CD. It turned out that the for the vast
number of music buyers in the world, the CD was "good enough" and the
general market essentially ignored SACD and other high-definition audio
formats.
I agree with the idea that any improved SQ from the new releases had to come
from the mastering.
The fact that the new format contributed nothing tangible is underscored by
the fact that depending on who you listen to, from 1/3 to 1/3 of all SACD
and DVD-A releases were made from lower rez masters, many 44/16 or 48/16.
This eventually became more-or-less common knowlege, but I can't recall
anybody blowing the whistle on the producers until it did become known.
So skeptics like I have the entertainment of watching and reading all sorts
of self-professed golden ears whooping and hollaring over the improved SQ of
the new format, when the music had been previously in one of the old,
purportedly inferior formats.
I have hundreds of SACDs. Many are SACD copies of old analog recordings
from the Columbia Records catalog. Things like Miles Davis' "Sketches of
Spain" and "Kind of Blue", Bernstein conducting "Rhapsody in Blue" and
"An American in Paris" by Gershwin, Szell conducting Wagner, etc. All of
these were analog master tapes and transferring them to SACD is legit.
Not that I notice any real difference between these SACD remasters and
the regular CD remasters of these same recordings, but there it is.
OTOH, I have a number of SACDs from Telarc and I can assure you that
they were all recorded direct to DSD as were the newer Sony stuff. A lot
of SACDs MAY have been remastered from 16-bit originals, but I suspect
that was mostly then current pop stuff.
---
news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints:
---