Jim Lesurf wrote:

In article , Chris Isbell
wrote:

BTW: I recently obtained a DVD-Audio player. My one DVD-Audio disc
sounds very nice, but no better than a good CD. (It's the Bach St.
Matthew Passion conducted by Harnoncourt and was recorded specifically
for DVD-Audio rather than being a remix of a 70s pop record.)

As an experiment I tried adding two rear speakers but found that this
made only a marginal difference for classical music.

I was very pleasantly suprised by just how good some DVD videos of
classical items are. I was tempted at one point to wonder if this is due to
the 48kHz sampling rate as opposed to 44kHz for CD. (I am only using the
stereo PCM sound for the DVDs.) However there are so many differences
between my CD and DVD systems [1] that it is essentially impossible for me
to form any conclusion about this at present.


It is possible to include a 96kHz 24 bit linear PCM track on a DVD video
- possibly that is what you are hearing (although cheaper DVD playerss
subsample this down to 48kHz).

Cheers.

James.

In article , Keith G wrote:
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all 'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the equivalent
CDs?

Well, even having never heard a SACD, I would dare to say that one element
is that digital audio production in itself is still getting better (IMHO,
I guess I should add - I'm sure there are those who will disagree but
I will give just some examples for why I suggest this).

First, many of the DDD CDs I have from the 80s (but not all) are very
flat in sound quality, regardless of performance quality.

However, I have CDs of analogue recordings from the 1960s onwards
with modern (1990s onward) digital mastering. Most sound marvellous.
Full of life and full of the ambience of the recording venue. For example
Boehm's 1967 Wagner Ring which just drips with the Bayreuth Festspielhaus
accoustic (even through the audible tape hiss).

Another specific example: I have a 1985 CD of a rather splendid 1975
performance conducted by Carlos Kleiber of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5. It
sounds flat. I also have the 1995 re-mastered CD. Even after correcting
for the higher level of the newer CD, it has bags more ambience. In many
ways it's much more like the 1970s LP I have of the same performance.

Actually I will listen to and enjoy that recording on any reasonable
medium - the performance is superb and the medium does not detract from
that. I also have CDs of superb performances back to the late 1920s
(e.g. Bix Beiderbecke and Pablo Casals) which a digital purist would
probably consider unlistenable.

In my own experience, generalizations about CDs being better than vinyl
are as just as false as generalizations that vinyl is better than CD.
I dare to suggest the same today about the generalization of SACD
versus CD. I am fairly sure digital production has a long way to go yet.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....

Myself, I would have kept up the former dignity. Tsk!

--
John Phillips

"John Phillips" wrote in message
...
In article , Keith G wrote:
Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital'
music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless, interested to know
why
exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so much better than the
equivalent
CDs?

Well, even having never heard a SACD, I would dare to say that one element
is that digital audio production in itself is still getting better (IMHO,
I guess I should add - I'm sure there are those who will disagree but
I will give just some examples for why I suggest this).

First, many of the DDD CDs I have from the 80s (but not all) are very
flat in sound quality, regardless of performance quality.

However, I have CDs of analogue recordings from the 1960s onwards
with modern (1990s onward) digital mastering. Most sound marvellous.
Full of life and full of the ambience of the recording venue. For example
Boehm's 1967 Wagner Ring which just drips with the Bayreuth Festspielhaus
accoustic (even through the audible tape hiss).


Tape hiss? (He says while taping a couple of New Orleans Jazz LPs as he
types.....) What's that then? Is it like the 'needle noise, pops and tics'
that make LPs 'unlistenable?

;-)

Yer hafta larf......



Another specific example: I have a 1985 CD of a rather splendid 1975
performance conducted by Carlos Kleiber of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5. It
sounds flat. I also have the 1995 re-mastered CD. Even after correcting
for the higher level of the newer CD, it has bags more ambience. In many
ways it's much more like the 1970s LP I have of the same performance.

Actually I will listen to and enjoy that recording on any reasonable
medium - the performance is superb and the medium does not detract from
that. I also have CDs of superb performances back to the late 1920s
(e.g. Bix Beiderbecke and Pablo Casals) which a digital purist would
probably consider unlistenable.


Digital 'purist'? That's a good way of putting it it!



In my own experience, generalizations about CDs being better than vinyl
are as just as false as generalizations that vinyl is better than CD.
I dare to suggest the same today about the generalization of SACD
versus CD. I am fairly sure digital production has a long way to go yet.

Anyone who says they don't is lying (if only to themselves) - sticks out
like a chapel hatpeg....

Myself, I would have kept up the former dignity. Tsk!



I know, I've spent too long on this group seeing vinyl get bashed to death
by a few, er, 'digital purists'.... ;-)

A certain John Phillips, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
However, I have CDs of analogue recordings from the 1960s onwards
with modern (1990s onward) digital mastering. Most sound marvellous.
Full of life and full of the ambience of the recording venue. For example
Boehm's 1967 Wagner Ring which just drips with the Bayreuth Festspielhaus
accoustic (even through the audible tape hiss).

Indeed. The analogue tape decks at the time, if properly aligned and set
up, were very good, and things improved a bit on the hiss front whenever
Dolby came along. I agree that many earlier CDs were indeed crap due to
dodgy mastering and dodgy equipment - amazing how an old recording can
really shine through in the hands of a good engineer.

In my own experience, generalizations about CDs being better than vinyl
are as just as false as generalizations that vinyl is better than CD.
I dare to suggest the same today about the generalization of SACD
versus CD. I am fairly sure digital production has a long way to go yet.

Leaving aside the X vs Y business, I'd say stereo digital reproduction
is pretty much as good as it needs to be right now; the signal recorded
is essentially identical to the input signal. There's not much room for
improvement at the moment.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

In article , Chesney Christ wrote:
Leaving aside the X vs Y business, I'd say stereo digital reproduction
is pretty much as good as it needs to be right now; the signal recorded
is essentially identical to the input signal. There's not much room for
improvement at the moment.

If you had said that modern stereo digital reproduction is _capable of
being_ pretty much as good as it needs to be then I could possibly agree.

I still buy modern CDs (1990s or later) where I think the sound could
have been much better. Maybe with SACDs (to return to a topic in the
thread title) in their marketing-led infancy still, more attention is
being paid to getting it right in practice.

With sales of the modern classical music CD sufficiently low on a
per-release basis, I suspect it's entirely possible to be unable to
spend enough time on basic good prodction these days, let alone time to
correct any errors.

--
John Phillips

A certain John Phillips, of uk.rec.audio "fame", writes :
In article , Chesney Christ wrote:
Leaving aside the X vs Y business, I'd say stereo digital reproduction
is pretty much as good as it needs to be right now; the signal recorded
is essentially identical to the input signal. There's not much room for
improvement at the moment.

If you had said that modern stereo digital reproduction is _capable of
being_ pretty much as good as it needs to be then I could possibly agree.

Yes, my paragraph above assumed "in the hands of an engineer who knows
what he is doing" and "properly set up kit".

I still buy modern CDs (1990s or later) where I think the sound could
have been much better.

Oh, I definitely agree there, and it's a travesty as good digital
recording is not hard to do with modern equipment. I have modern albums
where they've driven over the 0db level quite badly. There's no excuse
for that.

Maybe with SACDs (to return to a topic in the
thread title) in their marketing-led infancy still, more attention is
being paid to getting it right in practice.

I would not feel safe making that assumption. We hoped that might be the
case with DVD video, but frequently it has not been - shamefully
terrible jobs done on some films.

--

"Jokes mentioning ducks were considered particularly funny." - cnn.com

In article ,
John Phillips wrote:
First, many of the DDD CDs I have from the 80s (but not all) are very
flat in sound quality, regardless of performance quality.

Digital should guarantee a decent recording of the balance engineer's art.
But it can't correct for this if it's poor, or not to your taste.

However, I have CDs of analogue recordings from the 1960s onwards with
modern (1990s onward) digital mastering. Most sound marvellous. Full of
life and full of the ambience of the recording venue. For example
Boehm's 1967 Wagner Ring which just drips with the Bayreuth
Festspielhaus accoustic (even through the audible tape hiss).

Which backs this up. The record/replay side of digital is excellent - but
it depends, rather obviously, what is put into it.

Another specific example: I have a 1985 CD of a rather splendid 1975
performance conducted by Carlos Kleiber of Beethoven's Symphony No. 5.
It sounds flat. I also have the 1995 re-mastered CD. Even after
correcting for the higher level of the newer CD, it has bags more
ambience. In many ways it's much more like the 1970s LP I have of the
same performance.

Before coming to any conclusions, you'd have to know just what masters
both LP, original CD and re-mastered one came from. If, as is likely, they
are all different, it's not surprising the end results are different too.

--
*If you don't like the news, go out and make some.

Dave Plowman London SW 12
RIP Acorn

Keith G wrote:

Given that my own preferences are for vinyl and that I think all
'digital' music is crap compared with it, I am, nevertheless,
interested to know why exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so
much better than the equivalent CDs?

Same reason that DVD-Audio discs sound better. They aren't compressed
(dynamic range compression I mean) to within an inch of their life,
unlike most modern CD releases.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

--
"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
Keith G wrote:

I am, nevertheless,
interested to know why exactly is it that SACDs (stereo) sound so
much better than the equivalent CDs?

Same reason that DVD-Audio discs sound better. They aren't compressed
(dynamic range compression I mean) to within an inch of their life,
--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation

Never bought a sacd disc but would one sound any better than, say, a
digitally re-mastered cd, played back on a cd player (not sacd cd player)?
John the West Ham fan

housetrained wrote:

Never bought a sacd disc but would one sound any better than, say, a
digitally re-mastered cd, played back on a cd player (not sacd cd
player)?

Depends on whether the the CD layer was taken from the same master as
the SACD layer.

I have a DualDisc of Lee Ann Womack's greatest hits. The CD side sounds
compressed, the DVD-A side doesn't. The stereo mixes have minimal
compression, the multichannel mixes are in some places completely
different. I think I prefer the stereo mixes for the most part.

--
Glenn Richards Tel: (01453) 845735
Squirrel Solutions http://www.squirrelsolutions.co.uk/

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband installation