CD quality surprise

[BigH]

I am becoming a little lost here.

I was under the impression that anything on a SACD was/is recorded in DSD...*unknw*

Or is the SACD disc simply a container for data in any format, as DVD was?

Help needed...*crazy*

That can't be the case as many SACDs are made of analogue recordings, many albums were recorded before digital, such as Miles Davis 1950/60s albums.

 

[andyjm]

here is a link this will explain ......http://www.highfidelityreview.com/brothers-in-arms.html *smile*

I read the article, though it was badly written. The remix looks a complete dog's breakfast. The original tracks were recorded in digital on 16/44.1. For the remix they turned this back to analogue, mixed in analogue and re-digitised. Some argument about not being able to apply de-emphasis in the digital domain, which seems a bit spurious.

 

[davedotco]

I am becoming a little lost here.

I was under the impression that anything on a SACD was/is recorded in DSD...*unknw*

Or is the SACD disc simply a container for data in any format, as DVD was?

Help needed...*crazy*

That can't be the case as many SACDs are made of analogue recordings, many albums were recorded before digital, such as Miles Davis 1950/60s albums.

But they have to be converted to a digital data stream before it can be stored on whatever digital storage format is chosen.

My question is whether a SACD disc will only carry data in DSD form or whether, like DVD, it can hold digital data in any of a number of formats?

 

[Blacksabbath25]

I am becoming a little lost here.

I was under the impression that anything on a SACD was/is recorded in DSD...*unknw*

Or is the SACD disc simply a container for data in any format, as DVD was?

Help needed...*crazy*

That can't be the case as many SACDs are made of analogue recordings, many albums were recorded before digital, such as Miles Davis 1950/60s albums.

But they have to be converted to a digital data stream before it can be stored on whatever digital storage format is chosen.

My question is whether a SACD disc will only carry data in DSD form or whether, like DVD, it can hold digital data in any of a number of formats?

well the sacd case carry's the DSD logo and the link i find was the only thing i could find on the matter *smile*

 

[FunkyMonkey]

SACD is physically a (multi layered) DVD disk.

If single layer, it contains the music in DSD format. This can be in stereo OR multi channel (where multi channel can be any where from 1.0, i.e. true mono, to 5.1).

If multi layer, it contains a CD layer (so the disk can be played on any CD player), as well as a stereo and/or multi-channel SACD layer (which is encoded in DSD.)

So, yes, SACD is the disk version of DSD.

As for Brothers In Arms, I refuse to buy MoFi as they are well overpriced, and if I want stereo I would rather go to the better value stereo vinyl, and for me, a lot of SACD magic comes from multi channel recordings. See the list I made previously.

Get Linn sampler SACDs from their website for a fiver each if you want to hear and compare SADC and CD, as they are multi layered and exceptionally recorded.

 

[BigH]

Get Linn sampler SACDs from their website for a fiver each if you want to hear and compare SADC and CD, as they are multi layered and exceptionally recorded.

This has been discussed many times, I don't its a good comparision.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Get Linn sampler SACDs from their website for a fiver each if you want to hear and compare SADC and CD, as they are multi layered and exceptionally recorded.

This has been discussed many times, I don't its a good comparision.

It's relevant to the discussion, so in case people have not come across it before, it is worth mentioning. And true.

 

[BigH]

Get Linn sampler SACDs from their website for a fiver each if you want to hear and compare SADC and CD, as they are multi layered and exceptionally recorded.

This has been discussed many times, I don't its a good comparision.

It's relevant to the discussion, so in case people have not come across it before, it is worth mentioning. And true.

The point is certainly some Linn (24/16bit) recordings are not a straight conversion from 24bit to 16bit. People have done the conversion of the 24bit to 16bit and its the same as far as they can tell but its not the same as the Linn 16bit version, so its not a good comparision.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Get Linn sampler SACDs from their website for a fiver each if you want to hear and compare SADC and CD, as they are multi layered and exceptionally recorded.

This has been discussed many times, I don't its a good comparision.

It's relevant to the discussion, so in case people have not come across it before, it is worth mentioning. And true. 

The point is certainly some Linn (24/16bit) recordings are not a straight conversion from 24bit to 16bit. People have done the conversion of the 24bit to 16bit and its the same as far as they can tell but its not the same as the Linn 16bit version, so its not a good comparision.

I see. I am talking about the multi channel layer as compared to the CD. Linn SACDs are sublime.

 

[lindsayt]

I am not familiar with Kraftwerk except via TV so I cannot comment. However, I was astonished enough at the imaging, the detail, and yes, the dynamic range (if that means quietness to loudness ratio?) to post on here.

I bought Bon Iver a few months ago as it was on a list of quality CDs and I was not wowed by the quality difference between its MP3 copy and CD copy. The one in my title is more wow I would say, if not as complex...

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=christine+and&album=

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc?artist=kraftwerk

Chaleur Humaine is a typical over-compressed modern CD with a red DR rating of 5 to 6.

There are plenty of Kraftwerk releases with dark green DR ratings of 14 to 16.

Play a DR 14 album back to back with a DR 6 album - with appopriate adjustments of your volume knob and you will be left thinking that the DR 6 album sounds as flat as a pancake.

 

[BigH]

If you want dynamic range try albums like Folk Singer by Muddy Waters and Copperhead Road by Steve Earle.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

I am not familiar with Kraftwerk except via TV so I cannot comment. However, I was astonished enough at the imaging, the detail, and yes, the dynamic range (if that means quietness to loudness ratio?) to post on here.

I bought Bon Iver a few months ago as it was on a list of quality CDs and I was not wowed by the quality difference between its MP3 copy and CD copy. The one in my title is more wow I would say, if not as complex...

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=christine+and&album=

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list/dr/desc?artist=kraftwerk

Chaleur Humaine is a typical over-compressed modern CD with a red DR rating of 5 to 6.

There are plenty of Kraftwerk releases with dark green DR ratings of 14 to 16.

Play a DR 14 album back to back with a DR 6 album - with appopriate adjustments of your volume knob and you will be left thinking that the DR 6 album sounds as flat as a pancake.

It says the source is download. I wonder if it is the same for the CD that I am listening to.

 

[Electro]

its 96kHz /24bit taken direct from the master tapes the version i have the 20th anniversary edition but there is a sacd 2005 version too which is meant to be better

I'm reading a lot of negative reports about the original SACD which is 2005. The MoFi is meant to be better. It seems the original recording was done in 16bit. Certainly the 2005 remaster is the most compressed by some way at around 8 on drdatabase, the 1985 cd is 16.

There are some 1985 Cd versions that have a DR of 20 !

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=brothers+in+arms

Edit, I just noticed that 20 is the max dr not the average .

 

[nopiano]

I'm not sure we should slavishly rely on the DR site, interesting though it is. Dire Straits, amongst others, tend to write and perform at mostly lower volume levels, then the climaxes are suitably dramatic by contrast. I like that, but it means comparisons with other performers could be misleading. Obviously, for any given album it reveals different mastering and mixing.

 

[andyjm]

its 96kHz /24bit taken direct from the master tapes the version i have the 20th anniversary edition but there is a sacd 2005 version too which is meant to be better

I'm reading a lot of negative reports about the original SACD which is 2005. The MoFi is meant to be better. It seems the original recording was done in 16bit. Certainly the 2005 remaster is the most compressed by some way at around 8 on drdatabase, the 1985 cd is 16.

There are some 1985 Cd versions that have a DR of 20 !

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=brothers+in+arms

Edit, I just noticed that 20 is the max dr not the average .

Just as a reminder, DR is not 'dynamic range' in the engineering sense. It is open to question how well the DR number reflects the perceived dynamic range of the music.

 

[Electro]

its 96kHz /24bit taken direct from the master tapes the version i have the 20th anniversary edition but there is a sacd 2005 version too which is meant to be better

I'm reading a lot of negative reports about the original SACD which is 2005. The MoFi is meant to be better. It seems the original recording was done in 16bit. Certainly the 2005 remaster is the most compressed by some way at around 8 on drdatabase, the 1985 cd is 16.

There are some 1985 Cd versions that have a DR of 20 !

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=brothers+in+arms

Edit, I just noticed that 20 is the max dr not the average .

Just as a reminder, DR is not 'dynamic range' in the engineering sense. It is open to question how well the DR number reflects the perceived dynamic range of the music.

I did suspect that might be the case, I have quite a few Cd's that don't score that well on the DR database but seem to have a reasonable dynamic range when listened to.

 

[FunkyMonkey]

Regarding dynamic range, talking generally, the dynamic range of a recording is by no means that important for pop music, especially when it is electronic. UNLESS the artist wants it to be.

Low dynamic range just means low difference between quietest and loudest part. This is obviously important in jazz or especially classical, but not necessarily in pop. Then in rock it is probably more important. It just depends.

So that's it. DR discussion over.

Back to the original message: CD is still a great medium.

 

[Al ears]

Regarding dynamic range, talking generally, the dynamic range of a recording is by no means that important for pop music, especially when it is electronic. UNLESS the artist wants it to be.

Low dynamic range just means low difference between quietest and loudest part. This is obviously important in jazz or especially classical, but not necessarily in pop. Then in rock it is probably more important. It just depends.

So that's it. DR discussion over.

Back to the original message: CD is still a great medium.

Correction: CD is still a cheap medium that can sound great........

 

[Infiniteloop]

Regarding dynamic range, talking generally, the dynamic range of a recording is by no means that important for pop music, especially when it is electronic. UNLESS the artist wants it to be.

Low dynamic range just means low difference between quietest and loudest part. This is obviously important in jazz or especially classical, but not necessarily in pop. Then in rock it is probably more important. It just depends.

So that's it. DR discussion over.

Back to the original message: CD is still a great medium.

Correction: CD is still a cheap medium that can sound great........

Further addition: CD is still a cheap medium that can sound great or terrible.....*pardon*

 

[Al ears]

Regarding dynamic range, talking generally, the dynamic range of a recording is by no means that important for pop music, especially when it is electronic. UNLESS the artist wants it to be.

Low dynamic range just means low difference between quietest and loudest part. This is obviously important in jazz or especially classical, but not necessarily in pop. Then in rock it is probably more important. It just depends.

So that's it. DR discussion over.

Back to the original message: CD is still a great medium.

Correction: CD is still a cheap medium that can sound great........

Further addition: CD is still a cheap medium that can sound great or terrible.....*pardon*

That's why I included 'can' instead of does. ;-)

 

[Blacksabbath25]

There are some fantastic CDs out that sound great and in some respects some are not to far behind sacds in quality of sound I will still carry on buying CDs and I do like the sacds but they are so expensive which is a shame and which puts some people off buying them

 

[BigH]

There are some fantastic CDs out that sound great and in some respects some are not to far behind sacds in quality of sound I will still carry on buying CDs and I do like the sacds but they are so expensive which is a shame and which puts some people off buying them

Thats why certainly in the UK downloads make more sense, cost of SACDs including importing them from the USA is often too high when you can buy the same master on a download for around £12-£15.

 

[davedotco]

Are a carrier medium, that is all.

The data that comes off them is, to all intents and purposes, the same as the data that was recorded on them. They have no sound, cd players sound different because they are designed that way, nothing to do with the CD.

 

[lindsayt]

its 96kHz /24bit taken direct from the master tapes the version i have the 20th anniversary edition but there is a sacd 2005 version too which is meant to be better

I'm reading a lot of negative reports about the original SACD which is 2005. The MoFi is meant to be better. It seems the original recording was done in 16bit. Certainly the 2005 remaster is the most compressed by some way at around 8 on drdatabase, the 1985 cd is 16.

There are some 1985 Cd versions that have a DR of 20 !

http://dr.loudness-war.info/album/list?artist=&album=brothers+in+arms

Edit, I just noticed that 20 is the max dr not the average .

Just as a reminder, DR is not 'dynamic range' in the engineering sense. It is open to question how well the DR number reflects the perceived dynamic range of the music.

Every album I have with a dark green DR rating, I'd rate as a spectacularly good recording.

The sort of recording where even if I'm not into that genre of music I'd still be very happy to listen to it.

Every album I have with a red DR sounds dynamically compressed. This is most noticeable when you play them back to back with a dark green DR album.

If an album is either red or dark green I can tell what colour it is just by listening.

Go ahead and try this game at home. Listen to an album. Rate what colour it is then look it up in the DR database to see if you're right.

 

[lindsayt]

Regarding dynamic range, talking generally, the dynamic range of a recording is by no means that important for pop music, especially when it is electronic. UNLESS the artist wants it to be.

Low dynamic range just means low difference between quietest and loudest part. This is obviously important in jazz or especially classical, but not necessarily in pop. Then in rock it is probably more important. It just depends.

So that's it. DR discussion over.

Back to the original message: CD is still a great medium.

For you it might not be important.

For me it's vitally important.

I see it as a two pronged thing. Getting a system that preserves as much of the dynamics as possible. Seeking out albums with the greatest dynamic range.

Chaleur Humaine and Die Mensch Maschine are both electronic pop albums with vocals. One has a DR of 5, the other 16. The Kraftwerk album will sound a lot more dynamic than the Christine & the Queens album. And therefore more enjoyable for me to listen to.

I am sick and tired of listening to Red DR rating pop albums. So many of them could be superb recordings if they hadn't been put through the great big Compression Machine.

Red DR rating albums are like eating at McDonalds. OK for a quick fix but not really that satisfying nor nourishing.

Dark Green DR albums are like dining at the Georges V.