"Glenn Richards" wrote in
message
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.

Actually, a number of DVD-A and SACD releases are compressed, as compared to
the legacy CD release.

Also, a number of DVD-A and/or SACD releases don't have a lot of content
above 22-24 KHz:

http://www.world.std.com/~griesngr/intermod.ppt


Here's an interesting technical comparison:

http://www.audioholics.com/techtips/...sonCDDVDP1.php

The data is incomplete but still interesting. I have a number of questions
about the conclusions.

My analysis is that bottom line, none of the recordings plumbed the
limitations of any of the formats. Most if not all of the evidence can be
explained by the fact that they were mastered a bit differently.

Looking at the summary table shows far less differences between the formats
than one might expect.

Here's another article in a similar vein:

http://www.digit-life.com/articles2/...d-a/index.html

Others:

http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/10109

http://sound.westhost.com/cd-sacd-dvda.htm

Also, a number of DVD-A and/or SACD releases don't have a lot of content
above 22-24 KHz:

Where should they come from?
Juergen

"Glenn Richards" wrote in message
...
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, do you realise you are replying to a post that is two and a half
years old and has the words 'soft troll' in the Subject Line??

:-)

Keith G wrote:

Glenn, do you realise you are replying to a post that is two and a half
years old and has the words 'soft troll' in the Subject Line??

I did as soon as I'd posted it...

For some reason the original thread came up at the bottom of the
Thunderbird news window (I have stuff sorted in forward order, newest at
the bottom), and it was probably early in the morning. Knowing me I
probably looked at the day, month... but not the year.

Never mind!

--
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
news
Keith G wrote:

Glenn, do you realise you are replying to a post that is two and a
half
years old and has the words 'soft troll' in the Subject Line??

I did as soon as I'd posted it...

For some reason the original thread came up at the bottom of the
Thunderbird news window (I have stuff sorted in forward order,
newest at
the bottom), and it was probably early in the morning. Knowing me I
probably looked at the day, month... but not the year.

Never mind!

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

IT consultancy, hardware and software support, broadband
installation

Nonetheless it has been an interesting and absorbing thread!


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com