On Wed, 18 Jul 2012 08:05:07 -0500, MiNe 109
wrote:

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

Here's an interesting data point - the SACD DSOTM seems to have less dynamic
range than the previous CD version:

http://www.stereophile.com/news/11649/

Comparing the waveform pics there with my own CD 0777 7 46001 2 5,
recently backed up to HD, it's comforting to find that the trace of
Money is near identical in overall shape to the SACD layer rather than
the CD layer.

I don't see what you mean: this article compares the DSD and redbook
layers of the 30th Anniversary edition SACD of DSOTM (the latter is
dynamically compressed compared to the former).

Exactly, so this new redbook layer has less dynamic range than the
previous CD version that I have above.

Further proof, if it were needed, that no modern CD can be taken at
face value. The only way you can be sure that what you're getting is
pukka music that has not been f*cked up is to buy it, analyse it, and
then take it back to the shop and complain if it has been adulterated.

I haven't heard this SACD, or indeed any, but I suspect that if you
did a listening test between my CD and this new SACD, no-one over the
age of twenty, and only those under that age with exceptionally good
equipment and exceptionally well-trained ears, would be able to tell
the difference.

After all, a relatively small number of cymbal high frequency peaks
were all that were captured by SACD that couldn't be captured by CD,
because they are above CD's upper frequency limit.
--
================================================== =======
Please always reply to ng as the email in this post's
header does not exist. Or use a contact address at:
http://www.macfh.co.uk/JavaJive/JavaJive.html
http://www.macfh.co.uk/Macfarlane/Macfarlane.html