On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 05:59:55 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message

On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 05:50:08 -0400, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:

"Anthony PDC" antdeclan_at_hotmail.com wrote in message


PS: Four years on from that post above-quoted, SACD and DVD-Audio
are genuine advances over CD and high-end LP playback. Anyone with
ears can discern the higher quality immediately with half-decent
amplification/speakers.

The difference you can hear with SACD and DVD-A discs, as compared to
earlier CDs is due to the fact that they were remastered. The basic
technology has zero audible benefits for listening to music.

Then I am happy they were remastered (if I agree with your basic
assumptions a la Emperor's New Clothes, with which I do not). But hey,
we are all agreed thay sound better, so what's the problem?

I've heard a lot of remastering jobs that were IMO steps backwards,
sonically speaking. Two ways that this can happen involve adding dynamic
range compression, and adding artificial reverb. I haven't heard that any of
the remastered SACD/DVD-A releases have added artificial reverb, but several
of them have had their dynamic range substantially compressed.

As always, newer does not always mean better.


Hmmm...well, all I can say to you is that IMHO you are mistaken -
profoundly so. As a cathedral chorister over many years, and a person
who listens to live music regularly, DVD-A and SACD are immediately,
stunningly, better than CD (and LP) in terms both of dynamic range,
resolution, accuracy and...blah. If you cannot hear the sonic
improvement over CD and LP (and all my non-audiophile friends CAN)
then there's something, somewhere, seriously awry!

Regards,

Anthony